THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY' 
URBANACHAMPAIGIM 
000XS7ACKS 


HERTZBERG  — NEW  METHOD,  INC.  EAST  VANDALIA  ROAD,  JACKSONVILLE,  ILL.  62650 


TITLE  NO. 

ACCOUNT  NO. 

— ! 

LOT  AND  TICKET  NO. 

! 1.-0542*0700 

07200-741  1 

JC  00-  7 S3 

1 

i ??-??'  LINGARD  • 

K- 

??-??  HISTORY 

•»  OF  *•  ENGLAND  * 

£•  < 7 

200  > 


<ii  SET) 


I 43-24  5* 
42-28 


0 ♦ 5** 

CLOTH  COLOR 


942*1.64* 


% 


: 

w KH fil i [> J7B  special  work  and  prep 


01STX3. 

HEIGHT 

00 


STUBBING 

FRONT  COVER 

HAND  ADHESIVE 

MAP  POCKET  PAPER 

HAND  SEW 

NO  TRIM 

LENGTHWISE 

MAP  POCKET  CLOTH 

THRU  SEW 

PAGES  LAMINATED 

FOREIGN  TITLE 

SPECIAL  WORK 

THRU  SEW  ON  TAPE 

EXTRA  THICKNESS 

LINES  OF  LETTERING 

REMOVE  TATTLE  TAPE 

Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 


charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 


books. 


U.  of  I.  Library 


%\ 


>'JT  * • / 


Z Nor^s 
r.AR  18 '37 
kr"  -1  '37 


rr^v 


L*:-W 

I M 

If  § ttZt&B 


0/  o 


iDEC 

- *tp  io« 


. ^ 


p§ty 

§11 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05ling_1 


THE 

HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 


VOL.  V. 


'BaHantgne  ■ptCT 

EALLANTYNE,  HANSON  AND  CO. 
EDINBURGH  AND  LONDON 


tmn  a. 
Of  THE 


UHlVERSiir  OF  ItUNOlf 


CARDINAL  POLE 


THE 


HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND 

FROM  THE  FIRST 

INVASION  BY  THE  ROMANS 

TO  THE 

ACCESSION  OF  WILLIAM  AND  MARY 

In  1688. 


By  JOHN  LINGARD,  D.D. 


COPYRIGHT  EDITION, 

WITH  TEN  PORTRAITS  NEWLY  ETCHED  BY  D AMMAN. 


BOSTON,  U.S. : 

ESTES  AND  LAURIAT,/ 
1883. 


. 


THE 


HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND, 

FROM  THE  FIRST 


INVASION  BY  THE  HOMANS 

TO  THE 

ACCESSION  OF  WILLIAM  AND  MARY 

In  1688. 

By  JOHN  LINGARD,  D.U 


COPYRIGHT  EDITION, 

WITH  TEN  PORTRAITS  NEWLY  ETCHED  BY  D AMMAN. 


IN  TEN  VOLUMES. 
VOL.  Y. 


LONDON: 

J.  0.  NIMMO  k BAIN, 
i4,  KING  WILLIAM  STREET,  STRAND,  W.C. 
’ 1883. 


<?7i« 'I*  two 


\J 


CONTENTS 

OF 

THE  FIFTH  VOLUME. 


CHAPTER  I. 

HENRY  YII I. — continued. 


THE  KING  MARRIES  ANNE  BOLEYN — CRANMER  MADE  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY 
— HE  PRONOUNCES  A DIVORCE  BETWEEN  HENRY  AND  CATHERINE — THE  KING 

ASSUMES  THE  TITLE  OF  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH NEW  TREASONS  CREATED 

EXECUTIONS — PAPAL  BULL  AGAINST  HENRY. 


Henry  marries  Anne  ...  3 

Cranmer  made  archbishop  . . 5 

He  promises  a divorce  . .11 

Birth  of  the  Princess  Elizabeth  . 13 

Clement  annuls  the  judgment 
given  by  Cranmer  . . .14 

Wavering  conduct  of  Henry  . 15 

Interview  between  Clement  and 

Francis  . . . . .16 

Henry  appeals  to  a general  council  1 7 
Final  sentence  of  Clement  . .18 

Separation  of  England  from  the 
communion  of  Rome  . . 19 


Statutes  respecting  the  church  . 20- 

And  the  succession  to  the  crown  22 
Execution  of  Elizabeth  Barton  . 27 

Prosecution  of  Bishop  Fisher  . ib. 
And  of  Sir  Thomas  More  . . 29 

New  statutes  and  treasons  . . 33 

Opposition  to  the  supremacy  . 35 

Prosecutions  . . . .38 

Execution  of  Bishop  Fisher  . 41 

Trial  of  More  . . . .42 

His  condemnation  . . .44 

And  death  . . . *45 

Papal  bull  against  Henry  . *47 


rv 

VOL.  V.  b 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

I.  king’s  SUPREMACY — ITS  NATURE — CROMWELL  MADE  YICAR-GENERAL — BISHOPS 
TAKE  OUT  NEW  POWERS. — II.  DISSOLUTION  OF  MONASTERIES — LESSER  MONAS- 
TERIES SUPPRESSED — DEATH  OF  QUEEN  CATHERINE — ARREST,  DIVORCE,  AND 

EXECUTION  OF  ANNE INSURRECTION  IN  THE  NORTH — POLE’S  LEGATION 

GREATER  MONASTERIES  GIVEN  TO  THE  KING. — III.  DOCTRINE HENRY’S  CON- 
NECTION WITH  THE  LUTHERAN  PRINCES ARTICLES — INSTITUTION  OF  A CHRISTIAN 

MAN — DEMOLITION  OF  SHRINES — PUBLICATION  OF  THE  BIBLE. — IV.  PERSECUTION 

OF  LOLLARDS — ANABAPTISTS — REFORMERS — TRIAL  OF  LAMBERT POLE’S  SECOND 

LEGATION — EXECUTION  OF  HIS  RELATIONS. — V.  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN  THE  TWO 
PARTIES — STATUTE  OF  THE  SIX  ARTICLES — MARRIAGE  WITH  ANNE  OF  CLEVES 
— DIVORCE — FALL  OF  CROMWELL — MARRIAGE  WITH  CATHERINE  HOWARD — 
HER  EXECUTION — STANDARD  OF  ENGLISH  ORTHODOXY. 


Nature  of  the  supremacy  . . 49 

Cromwell  vicar-general  . . 51 

Bishops  sue  out  new  powers  . ib. 

Dissolution  of  monasteries  . 53 

Suppression  of  the  lesser  monas- 
teries .....  56 

Some  are  respited  . . -57 

Death  of  Catherine  . . . 59 

Queen  Anne’s  miscarriage  . 62 

Her  imprisonment  ...  64 

Her  behaviour  in  prison  . . 65 

Trial  of  the  queen  ...  67 

Cranmer  pronounces  a divorce  . 73 

She  is  beheaded  ...  76 

Mary  reconciled  to  her  father  . 78 

Insurrection  in  the  northern 
counties  ....  82 

The  pilgrimage  of  grace  . . 84 

It  is  suppressed  ...  87 

Pole’s  legation  defeated  . . 89 

Dissolution  of  the  greater  monas- 
teries . . . . 91 

Of  Furness  . ..  . -92 

Proceedings  of  the  commissioners  93 

Monastic  property  vested  in  the 

king 96 

New  bishoprics  established  . 99 

Doctrine  of  the  English  church/  100 
Attempted  union  of  the  king  with 
the  German  reformers  . . 101 

It  fails  .....  104 

Articles  of  doctrine  . . . ib. 

Institution  of  a Christian  . . 105 

Envoys  from  the  Lutheran 
princes  . . . .106 


Destruction  of  shrines 
Tyndal’s  Bible 
Matthewe’s  Bible  . 
Persecution  of  Lollards 
OfEeformers  . 

Trial  of  Lambert 
Arrest  and  execution  of  the  bro- 
thers of  Pole 

Second  legation  of  Pole  . 

The  pope  orders  the  publication 
of  the  bull  against  Henry 
Arrest  and  execution  of  Pole’s 
mother  .... 
Struggle  of  parties  . 

Statute  of  the  six  articles 
Terror  of  Cranmer  . 

Acts  of  parliament  . 

King’s  marriage  with  Anne  of 

Cleves 

His  disappointment  . 
Imprudence  of  Barnes 
Cromwell’s  speech  at  the  opening 
of  parliament 

He  is  arrested .... 
And  attainted .... 
King  divorced  from  Anne 
Execution  of  Cromwell  . 

Other  executions 
King  marries  Catherine  Howard 
She  is  accused  of  incontinency  . 
Condemned  .... 
And  executed  .... 
Restraint  on  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  .... 
Erudition  of  a Christian  man  . 


107 

no 

hi 

113 

1 14 
116 

120 

123 

ib. 


125 

127 

129 

131 

133 


137 

ib. 

139 


140 

142 

143 

ib. 

148 

149 

150 

151 
156 
158 


159 

161 


CONTENTS. 


Vll 


CHAPTER  III. 

STATUTE8  RESPECTING  WALES — TRANSACTIONS  IN  IRELAND — NEGOTIATIONS  AND 
WAR  WITH  SCOTLAND — RUPTURE  WITH  FRANCE — PEACE — TAXES—  DEPRECIA- 
TION OF  THE  CURRENCY — CRANMER GARDINER — KING’S  LAST  ILLNESS 

EXECUTION  OF  THE  EARL  OF  SURREY — ATTAINDER  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  NORFOLK 

DEATH  OF  HENRY HIS  CHARACTER SUBSERVIENCY  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT 

DOCTRINE  OF  PASSIVE  OBEDIENCE — SERVILITY  OF  RELIGIOUS  PARTIES. 


Wales 

162 

A benevolence  .... 

193 

Ireland 

, # 

164 

Adulteration  of  the  money 

194 

Rebellion  of  Kildare  . 

165 

Another  subsidy 

ib. 

Pacification  of  Ireland 

, , 

168 

Danger  of  Cranmer  . 

195 

Scotland  . 

170 

And  of  Gardiner 

197 

Marriage  of  James  . 

172 

Also  of  Queen  Catherine  . 

198 

Negotiations 

# 

173 

Death  of  Askew  and  others 

201 

An  interview  refused  by  James  . 

176 

Henry’s  last  speech  on  religion  . 

202 

War  between  the  two  < 

crowns  . 

17  7 

His  maladies  and  inquietude 

203 

A marriage  proposed 
Edward  and  Mary . 

between 

179 

Rivalry  between  the  Howards  and 
Seymours  .... 

204 

It  is  agreed  to  on  certain  conditions  181 
The  treaty  broken  . . .182 

Invasion  of  Scotland  . . .183 

Peace  . . ...  184 

Henry  is  discontented  with  Francis  185 
Concludes  a treaty  with  the  em- 
peror   ib. 

War  with  France  . . .186 

Siege  of  Boulogne  . . .188 

Francis  makes  peace  with  the 
emperor  . . . .189 

England  insulted  by  the  French 
fleet  .....  190 

Peace  with  France  . . .191 

Taxes 192 

Loans ib. 


Disgrace  of  Gardiner  and  arrest 
of  the  Howards  . . . 205 

Execution  of  the  earl  of  Surrey  . 208 

Confession  and  attainder  of  the 
duke  of  Norfolk  . . . ib. 

King’s  death  . . . .211 

The  king’s  will  . . .212 

His  character  . . . .217 

House  of  Lords  . . .219 

House  of  Commons  . . . 321 

Flattery  of  the  king  . . . ib. 

Ecclesiastical  influence  of  the 
crown  .....  223 

Servility  of  the  opposite  parties  . 224 

Extraordinary  statutes  . . 225 

Prosecutions  for  treason  . . 227 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EDWARD  VI. 

HERTFORD  IS  MADE  PROTECTOR  AND  DUKE  OF  SOMERSET — WAR  WITH  SCOT- 
LAND— BATTLE  OF  PINKENCLEUGH — PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION — BOOK 
OF  COMMON  PRAYER — LORD  ADMIRAL  ARRESTED  AND  BEHEADED — DISCONTENT 
AND  INSURRECTIONS — FRANCE  DECLARES  WAR — PROTECTOR  IS  SENT  TO  THE 

TOWER  AND  DISCHARGED — PEACE — DEPRIVATION  OF  BISHOPS TROUBLES  OF 

THE  LADY  MARY FOREIGN  PREACHERS — SOMERSET  ARRESTED  AND  EXECUTED 

— NEW  PARLIAMENT — WARWICK’S  AMBITION — DEATH  OF  THE  KING. 


The  council  of  regency  . .231 

The  earl  of  Hertford  protector  . 233 


Creation  of  new  titles 
Coronation  of  Edward 


• 235 

• 237 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


Address  of  Cranmer 
The  chancellor  removed  . 
Somerset  made  independent  of 
the  council  .... 
Negotiation  with  France 
Treaty  with  the  murderers  of 

Beaton 

They  are  reduced  by  the  governor 
The  protector  invades  Scotland  . 
He  returns  to  England 
Religious  innovations 
New  commissions  to  the  bishops 
Visitation  of  dioceses 
Opposition  of  Gardiner 
He  is  imprisoned 
A parliament  .... 
Grant  of  chantries  . 

Repeal  of  new  treasons 
Petition  of  clergy  refused  . 
Election  of  bishops  . 

Suppression  of  mendicity  . 
Ecclesiastical  injunctions  . 
Gardiner  sent  to  the  Tower 
Catechism  and  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  ..... 
Marriage  of  the  clergy 
History  of  the  lord  admiral 
He  marries  the  queen  dowager  . 
Wins  the  affection  of  the  king  . 
Aspires  to  the  hand  of  the  lady 
Elizabeth  .... 
He  is  attainted  of  treason . 

And  is  executed 
Resumption  of  hostilities  with 
Scotland  .... 
Mary  carried  to  France 
Shrewsbury  in  Scotland 
General  discontent  . 
Insurrections  .... 
In  Oxfordshire .... 
In  Devonshire  .... 
In  Norfolk  .... 
War  declared  by  the  king  of 
France  ..... 
Dissensions  in  the  cabinet 
Somerset  and  Warwick  opposed 
to  each  other 

Somerset  sent  to  the  Tower 
Meeting  of  parliament 


238 

239 

241 

242 

243 

246 

247 

249 
ib. 

250 

251 

252 

253 

254 
ib. 

255 

256 
258 

ib. 

262 

263 

265 

267 

269 

270 

272 

273 
275 
277 

279 

282 

283 

284 

285 

286 

287 
289 

291 

293 

295 

299 

300 


Submission  and  discharge  of  So 
merset .... 

Peace  with  France  and  Scotland 
Deprivation  of  Bonner 
Deprivation  of  Gardiner 
Of  Day  and  Heath  . 

Troubles  of  the  lady  Mary 
Her  chaplains  are  prevented  from 
saying  mass  . 

Execution  for  heresy  . 

Burning  of  Bocher 
Von  Paris 

Employment  of  foreign  divines 
Obstinacy  of  Hooper 
New  dissensions  between  Somer 
set  and  Warwick  . 

Treaty  of  marriage  between  Ed 
ward  and  a French  princess 
Arrest  of  Somerset  and  his  friends 
Arrival  of  the  dowager  queen  of 
Scotland 

Depositions  against  Somerset 
His  trial  .... 

He  is  condemned 
And  executed  . 

Fate  of  his  adherents 
Acts  of  parliament  . 
Improvement  in  trials  for  treason 
Prosecution  of  the  bishop  of 
Durham  .... 

The  English  service  introduced 
into  Ireland  .... 
Articles  of  religion  . 

Code  of  ecclesiastical  laws 
Edward’s  last  parliament  . 
Northumberland’s  riches  and 
ambition  .... 

His  attempt  to  alter  the  succes- 
sion   

Edward  consents 
Reluctance  of  the  judges  . 
Conduct  of  the  archbishop 
The  counsellors  sign  it 
The  king  dies  .... 
His  abilities  .... 
His  religious  opinions 
State  of  the  nation  during  his 
reign  . 


302 

305 

309 

310 
313 
315 

319 

322 

323 

324 

325 

326 

328 

330 

332 

ib. 

333 

335 

336 

338 

339 
34i 

343 

344 

345 

346 

347 
350 

352 

354 

356 

357 
359 

ib. 

362 
ib. 

363 

365 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


CHAPTER  V. 

MARY. 

LADY  JANE  GREY  PROCLAIMED  QUEEN THE  LADY  MARY  IS  ACKNOWLEDGED 

HER  QUESTIONS  TO  THE  EMPEROR  CHARLES EXECUTION  OF  NORTHUMBERLAND 

MISCONDUCT  OF  COURTENAY QUEEN  SEEKS  TO  RESTORE  THE  ANCIENT 

SERVICE — ELIZABETH  CONFORMS CRANMER  OPPOSES PARLIAMENT INTRIGUES 

OF  NOAILLES — INSURRECTION  OF  WYAT — FAILURE  AND  PUNISHMENT  OF  THE 


CONSPIRATORS — ELIZABETH 

AND  COURTENAY  IN  DISGRACE TREATY 

OF 

MARRIAGE  BETWEEN  MARY 

AND  PHILIP — RECONCILIATION  WITH  ROME. 

Intrigues  of  foreign  courts 

368 

Courtenay  conspires  against  her 

410 

Proceedings  of  the  council 

370 

Queen  answers  the  address 

412 

Lady  Jane  Grey 

37i 

Imperial  ambassadors  to  con- 

Proclaimed queen 

373 

clude  the  treaty  . 

413 

Letters  between  Mary  and  the 

Kising  of  the  conspirators 

417 

council .... 

375 

Wyat  in  Kent .... 

421 

The  adherents  of  Mary  . 

377 

Defeats  the  royalists 

423 

Eidley  preaches  against  her 

378 

Queen’s  speech  in  the  Guildhall 

425 

Her  success 

379 

Progress  of  Wyat 

426 

Northumberland  alarmed . 

380 

He  is  made  prisoner 

429 

The  council  proclaims  Mary 

381 

Execution  of  Jane  Grey  and  her 

Northumberland  is  arrested 

383 

husband  .... 

430 

The  queen  enters  the  capital 

384 

Other  executions 

431 

The  new  council 

385 

Arrest  of  Elizabeth  and  Courte- 

Proclamations . 

386 

nay  . ^ . 

434 

The  queen  consults  the  emperor 

388 

Evidence  against  them 

436 

Kespecting  the  traitors 

389 

Letters  and  confessions  . 

ib. 

Their  trials 

ib. 

They  are  saved  by  Gardiner 

438 

And  punishment 

39i 

Queen’s  conduct  to  Noailles 

439 

Queen  proposes  to  marry  . 

392 

Katification  of  the  treaty  of  mar- 

The emperor  offers  his  son 

393 

riage  . 

440 

Opposition  to  Philip 

395 

Proceedings  of  parliament 

441 

Orders  respecting  religion 

397 

Arrival  of  Philip 

445 

Kiots  .... 

398 

Marriage  of  Philip  and  Mary  . 

446 

Elizabeth  conforms  . 

399 

Ee-union  with  Eome 

447 

Cranmer’s  declaration 

400 

Assurance  of  abbey  lands 

449 

The  pope  appoints  Pole  ' 

his 

Meeting  of  parliament 

45° 

legate  .... 

401 

Arrival  of  Pole .... 

45i 

Meeting  of  parliament 

402 

His  proceedings 

452 

First  session  . 

403 

Conduct  of  parliament 

453 

Second  session . 

404 

Decree  of  the  legate 

454 

Eestoration  of  the  ancient  service 

405 

Alienation  of  church  lands 

455 

Other  enactments  . 

406 

Intrigues  of  the  French  ambas- 

Parties respecting  the  queen’s 

sador  ..... 

456 

marriage 

407 

Acts  of  grace  .... 

458 

Intrigues  of  Noailles 

408 

Embassy  to  Eome  . 

459 

Address  to  the  queen 

409 

VOL.  v. 


c 


X 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


PERSECUTION  OP  THE  REFORMERS — SUFFERINGS  OF  RIDLEY  AND  LATIMER 

RECANTATIONS  AND  DEATH  OF  CRANMER — DURATION  AND  SEVERITY  OF  THE 

PERSECUTION — DEPARTURE  OF  PHILIP DEATH  OF  GARDINER — SURRENDER  BY 

THE  CROWN  OF  TENTHS  AND  FIRST-FRUITS — TREASONABLE  ATTEMPTS — WAR 

WITH  FRANCE  AND  SCOTLAND — VICTORY  AT  ST.  QUINTIN LOSS  OF  CALAIS — 

DEATH  AND  CHARACTER  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


Origin  of  the  persecution  . . 464 

Laws  against  heresy  . . 465 

Petitions  of  the  reformers  . 466 
The  first  victims  . . . 467 

Sermon  of  a Spanish  friar  . 469 

The  bishops  urged  to  do  their 

duty 470 

Account  of  Ridley  . . . 47 1 

Of  Latimer  . . . . 472 

Disputation  at  Oxford  . . 474 

Execution  of  Ridley  and  Latimer  476 
Recantations  of  Cranmer . . ib. 

His  execution  . . . .481 

Conduct  of  Pole  . . . 482 

Conduct  of  the  Protestants  . 483 

Number  of  the  sufferers  . .485 

Provocation  given  to  Mary  . 486 
Negotiation  between  France 
and  Spain  ....  488 
Queen’s  supposed  pregnancy  . 490 
Death  of  Gardiner  . . . 493 

Mary  restores  the  church  property  494 


Dudley’s  conspiracy 
Attempt  to  rob  the  treasury 
Elizabeth  is  accused 
Cleobury’s  plot 

Elizabeth  wishes  to  escape  to 
France  .... 


496 

498 

499 

500 

501 


Her  objection  to  marry  . 

5oi 

Troubles  of  the  queen 

503 

Stafford’s  plot .... 

508 

Philip  returns  to  England 

509 

Henry’s  manifesto  . 

511 

Victory  of  St.  Quintin 

512 

Motion  of  the  Scots 

Contest  between  Mary  and  the 

5H 

pope  ..... 

5i5 

Loss  of  Calais .... 

518 

Grief  of  Mary  and  the  nation  . 

520 

Military  operations  . 

521 

Naval  expedition 

523 

Mary’s  last  sickness 

524 

Meeting  of  parliament  . 

525 

Death  of  the  queen  . 

526 

Her  character 

ib. 

Her  virtues  .... 

527 

Her  abilities  .... 

528 

Her  progresses 

ib. 

Foundation  of  colleges 

529 

Laws  ..... 

530 

Commercial  treaty  with  Russia 
Dissolution  of  the  company  of 

531 

the  Steelyard 

533 

Ireland 

534 

Notes 


• 537 


HISTORY 


OF 

ENGLAND. 

4 

CHAPTEK  I. 

HENRY  VIII .—{Continued). 


THE  KING  MABRIES  ANNE  BOLEYN CRANMER  MADE  ARCHBISHOP  OF 

CANTERBURY HE  PRONOUNCES  A DIVORCE  BETWEEN  HENRY  AND 

CATHERINE THE  KING  ASSUMES  THE  TITLE  OF  HEAD  OF  THE 

CHURCH NEW  TREASONS  CREATED EXECUTIONS — PAPAL  BULL 

AGAINST  HENRY. 

Pive  years  had  now  rolled  away  since  Henry  first 
solicited  a divorce,  three  since  he  began  to  cohabit 
with  Anne  Boleyn,  and  still  he  appeared  to  have  made 
hut  little  progress  towards  the  attainment  of  his  ob- 
ject.1 The  reader,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  im- 
petuosity of  his  character,  will  perhaps  admire  his 
patience  under  so  many  delays  and  miscarriages ; he 

1 This  charge  of  cohabitation  has  given  offence. — See  Hallam, 
Const.  Hist.  i.  84,  note.  Yet,  if  there  were  no  other  authority,  the 
very  case  itself  would  justify  it.  A young  woman  between  twenty 
and  thirty  listens  to  declarations  of  love  from  a married  man  who 
has  already  seduced  her  sister ; and,  on  his  promise  to  abstain  from 
his  wife  and  to  marry  her,  she  quits  her  parental  home,  and  consents 
to  live  with  him  under  the  same  roof,  where  for  three  years  she  is 
constantly  in  his  company  at  meals,  in  his  journeys,  on  occasions  of 
ceremony,  and  at  parties  of  pleasure.  Can  it  betray  any  great  want 
of  candour  to  dispute  the  innocence  of  such  intimacy  between  the 
two  lovers?  Their  contemporaries  seem  to  have  had  no  scruple  on 

YOL.  V.  B 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1532. 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1532. 


Sept.  1. 


*53  5- 
Jan.  25. 


2r 

may  discover  its  true  cause  in  the  infecundity  of  Anne, 
which  had  hitherto  disappointed  the  king’s  most  anxi- 
ous wish  to  provide  for  the  succession  to  the  throne. 
Instead  of  making  her  his  wife,  he  had  in  September 
last  granted  to  her,  and  to  the  heirs  male  of  her  body 
for  ever,  the  dignity  of  marchioness  of  Pembroke,  with 
an  annuity  to  her  of  one  thousand  pounds  for  life  out 
of  the  bishopric  of  Durham,  and  of  another  thousand 
out  of  several  manors  belonging  to  the  crown ; but 
four  months  later  she  proved  to  be  in  a condition 
to  promise  him  an  heir ; and  the  necessity  of  placing 
beyond  cavil  the  legitimacy  of  the  child  induced  him 
to  violate  the  pledge  which  he  had  so  solemnly  given 
to  the  king  of  France.  On  the  25  th  of  January,  at 
an  early  hour,  Dr.  Eowland  Lee,  one  of  the  royal 
chaplains,  received  an  order  to  celebrate  mass  in  a 

that  head.  “ The  king,”  writes  Carlo  Capello  on  May  13,  1532, 
“ loses  no  opportunity  of  despatching  matters,  because,  as  is  reported , 
“ my  Lady  Anne  is  heavy  with  child — Perche,  come  si  dice,  Madama 
“ Anna  e gravida.”  And  again,  when  the  marriage  of  Henry  and 
Anne  was  publicly  announced,  he  writes  on  April  12,  1533,  “that 
“ he  had  been  assured  not  only  that  it  was  now  some  months  since 
“ the  marriage,  but  that  Henry  had  taken  a male  child  some 
“ months  old  together  with  her — Mi  vien  affermato  za  piu  mese 
“ questa  Maesta  aver  la  sposata,  e aver  uno  filiol  di  qualche  mese  con 
“ lei.” — Ragguagli  of  Mr.  Rawdon  Brown,  iii.  329,  332.  The  last 
report,  that  he  took  with  her  at  the  marriage  a male  child  some 
months  old,  must  allude  to  the  supposed  cause  of  the  unexpected 
bounty  of  the  king  to  Anne  on  the  1st  of  the  preceding  September, 
when  he  created  her,  by  the  name  of  Anne  Rochford , marchioness  of 
Pembroke,  and  gave  to  her,  and  the  heirs  male  of  her  body  for  ever 
(whether  legitimate  or  not),  precedence  before  all  other  individuals 
of  the  same  rank  (and  consequently  of  the  blood  royal,  as  several 
then  were),  with  an  annuity  of  1,000 Z.,  to  which  were  added  other 
valuable  gifts. — See  Chron.  Catal.  p.  174.  The  original  charter  is 
in  the  Chapter-house,  Westminster.  It  seems  to  me  that  this 
limitation  of  the  precedency  to  the  issue  male  of  Anne,  legitimate 
or  not,  can  only  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  such  issue, 
though  illegitimate,  already  existed,  and  that  Henry  was  in  reality 
providing  for  the  precedency  of  his  own  son,  the  filiol  mentioned  by 
Capello. 


HENRY  MARRIES  ANNE. 


3 


room  in  the  west  turret  of  Whitehall.  There  he 
found  the  king  attended  by  Norris  and  Heneage,  two 
of  the  grooms  of  the  chamber,  and  Anne  Boleyn, 
accompanied  by  her  trainbearer  Anne  Savage,  after- 
wards Lady  Berkeley.  We  are  told  that  Lee,  when 
he  discovered  the  object  for  which  he  had  been  called, 
made  some  opposition  ; but  Henry  calmed  his  scruples 
with  the  assurance  that  Clement  had  pronounced  in 
his  favour,  and  that  the  papal  instrument  was  safely 
deposited  in  his  -closet.1 

As  soon  as  the  marriage  ceremony  had  been  per- 
formed, the  parties  separated  in  silence  before  it  was 
light;  and  the  father  of  Anne,  now  earl  of  Wiltshire 
and  Viscount  Bochford,  was  despatched  to  announce 
the  event,  but  in  the  strictest  confidence,  to  Francis. 
At  the  same  time  he  was  instructed  to  dissuade  that 
king  from  consenting  to  the  intended  marriage  of  his 
second  son  with  the  niece  of  Clement ; or,  if  it  could 
not  be  prevented,  to  prevail  on  him  to  make  it  a con- 
dition of  the  marriage  that  the  pope  should  proceed 
no  further  in  his  censures  against  Henry.2  Francis 
received  the  intelligence  with  sorrow.  Henry’s  pre- 
cipitancy had  broken  all  the  measures  which  had  been 
planned  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  English  king  with 
the  pontiff ; but  in  answer  to  his  complaints  by  Langey 
his  ambassador,  Henry  pleaded  scruples  of  conscience, 
and  promised  that  he  would  conceal  the  marriage  till 

1 Burnet  treats  this  account  as  one  of  the  fictions  of  Sanders : 
but  it  is  taken  from  a manuscript  history  of  the  divorce  presented 
to  Queen  Mary,  thirty  years  before  the  work  of  Sanders  was  pub- 
lished (see  Le  Grand,  ii.  no);  and  agrees  perfectly  with  the 
attempt  to  keep  the  marriage  secret  for  two  or  three  months.  Lee 
was  made  bishop  of  Chester,  was  translated  to  Lichfield  and 
Coventry,  and  honoured  with  the  presidentship  of  Wales. — Stowe, 
543- 

2 Transcripts  for  the  N.  Rym.  176. 

B 2 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.H.  1533. 


April  12. 


1532. 

August  23. 


4 HENRY  VIII. 

the  month  of  May,  by  which  time  the  interview  be- 
tween Francis  and  Clement  would  have  taken  place. 
Then,  if  Clement  did  him  justice,  the  recent  proceed- 
ing would  prove  of  no  detriment ; if  not,  he  was 
determined  to  set  the  papal  authority  at  defiance. 
But,  contrary  to  his  hopes,  the  interview  was  post- 
poned; the  pregnancy  of  the  bride  became  visible; 
and  on  Easter  eve  orders  were  given  that  she  should 
receive  the  honours  due  to  the  queen  consort.  The 
marriage  was  thus  acknowledged ; still  the  date  of  its 
celebration  remained  involved  in  mysteiy ; and,  to  en- 
courage the  notion  that  the  child  had  been  conceived 
in  wedlock,  a report  was  artfully  circulated  that  the 
nuptials  had  occurred  at  a more  early  period,  im- 
mediately after  the  separation  of  the  two  kings  at 
Calais. 

Archbishop  Warham,  who  had  been  driven  from 
court  by  the  ascendancy  of  Wolsey,  was  zealously 
attached  to  the  ancient  doctrines  and  the  papal  au- 
thority : his  death  in  the  course  of  the  last  summer 
had  empowered  the  king  to  raise  to  the  first  dignity  in 
the  English  church  a prelate  of  opposite  principles,  and 
more  devoted  to  the  will  of  his  sovereign.  Thomas 

1 Hence  the  marriage  is  dated  on  the  14th  of  November,  1532, 
the  day  when  Henry  and  Anne  sailed  from  Calais,  by  almost  all  our 
historians.  But  Godwin  (Annal.  51)  and  Stowe  (Annals,  543) 
have  assigned  it  to  the  25th  January,  the  feast  of  the  Conversion  of 
St.  Paul ; and  that  they  are  right  is  incontestably  proved  from  a 
letter  still  extant,  written  by  Archbishop  Cranmer  to  his  friend 
Hawkins,  the  ambassador  to  the  emperor.  After  an  account  of  the 
coronation,  he  proceeds  thus : “ But,  nowe,  sir,  you  may  nott 
“ ymagyne  that  this  coronacion  was  before  her  marriage,  for  she 
11  was  married  much  about  Sainte  Paule’s  daye  laste,  as  the  condicion 
“ thereof  dothe  well  appere  by  reason  she  ys  nowe  somewhat  bigge 
“ with  chylde.  Notwithstanding  yt  hath  byn  reported  thorowte  a 
“ great  parte  of  the  realme  that  I maried  her,  which  was  plainl}r 
11  false : for  I myself  knewe  not  therof  a fortnyght  after  yt  was 
“ donne.” — Archseologia,  xviii.  81. 


CRANMER  MADE  ARCHBISHOP. 


5 


Cranmer,  at  the  recommendation  of  Henry,1  had  been 
taken  into  the  family  of  the  Boleyns,  and  had  assisted 
the  father  and  the  daughter  with  his  services  and 
advice : his  hook  in  favour  of  the  divorce,  the  boldness 
with  which  he  had  advocated  the  royal  cause  at  Koine, 
and  the  industry  with  which  he  had  solicited  signatures 
in  Italy,  had  raised  him  in  the  esteem  of  the  king ; 
and  soon  after  his  return  he  had  been  appointed  orator . 
ad  Csesarem,  or  ambassador  attendant  on  the  emperor. 
Both  Henry  and  Anne  flattered  themselves  that,  by 
selecting  him  for  the  successor  of  Warham,  they  would 
possess  an  archbishop  according  to  their  own  hearts. 
There  was,  however,  one  objection  which  might  have 
proved  fatal  to  his  elevation  with  a prince,  who  till 
his  last  breath  continued  to  enforce  with  the  stake  and 
the  halter  the  observance  of  clerical  celibacy.  Cran- 
mer  after  the  death  of  his  wife  had  taken  orders;  but, 
during  one  of  his  agencies  abroad,  he  had  suffered 
himself  to  be  captivated  with  the  charms  of  a young 
woman,  the  niece  of  Osiander  or  of  his  wife,  had 
married  her  in  private,  and  had  left  her  in  Germany 
with  her  friends.2  Whether  this  marriage  had  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  Henry,  or  was  considered  by  him 
invalid  according  to  the  canon  law,  is  uncertain ; but, 
“ to  the  surprise  and  sorrow  of  many,”3  he  resolved  to 

1 So  at  least  we  are  told  on  the  very  questionable  authority  of  a 
long  story  in  Foxe,  and  a MS.  life  of  Cranmer,  C.  C.  Coll.  Cam. — 
See  Fiddes,  469. 

2 There  appears  some  doubt  as  to  the  time  of  this  marriage. 
Godwin,  in  his  Annals,  says : Uxore  jamdudum  orbatus,  quam 
adolescens  duxerat,  puellse  cujusdam  amore  irretitus  tenebatur  (haec 
erat  neptis  uxoris  Osiandri)  quam  etiam  sibi  secundo  connubio 
jungere  omnimodis  decreverat  (p.  49).  De  Praesulibus  Anglicanis, 
he  says : Quod  maxime  angebat,  conscientia  fuit  ductse  uxoris, 
neptis  ea  fuit  Osiandro  (p.  138). 

3 Praeter  opinionem  et  sensum  multorum. — Antiq.  Brit.  327. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1532. 


Oct.  1. 


6 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1532. 

Nov.  18. 
1533- 

March  3. 

March  30. 


raise  Cranmer  to  the  archbishopric,  and  appointed 
Dr.  Hawkins  to  succeed  him  in  the  embassy.  From 
Mantua,  where  the  emperor  then  held  his  court, 
Cranmer  returned  to  England ; the  papal  confirma- 
tion was  asked  and  obtained  ; the  necessary  bulls  were 
expedited  in  the  usual  manner,  and  in  a very  few  days 
after  their  arrival  the  consecration  followed.1  But  by 
what  casuistry  could  the  archbishop  elect,  who  was 
well  acquainted  with  the  services  expected  from  him, 
reconcile  it  with  his  conscience  to  swear  at  his  con- 
secration canonical  obedience  to  the  pope,  when  he 
was  already  resolved  to  act  in  opposition  to  the  papal 
authority  ? With  the  royal  approbation  he  called  four 
witnesses  and  a notary  into  the  chapter-house  of 
St.  Stephen’s  at  Westminster,  and  in  their  presence 
declared  that  by  the  oath  of  obedience  to  the  pope, 
which  for  the  sake  of  form  he  should  be  obliged  to 
take,  he  did  not  intend  to  bind  himself  to  any  thing 

1 Without  noticing  the  question  whether  Cranmer  was  eager  or 
reluctant  to  accept  the  dignity,  I shall  state  the  principal  dates  for 
the  satisfaction  of  the  reader. — Aug.  24.  Warham  dies.  Oct.  1. 
Henry  signs  the  recall  of  Cranmer,  and  appoints  Hawkins  to  succeed 
him  (Transcripts  forNewRymer,  174).  Oct.  4.  The  emperor,  with 
whom  Cranmer  resides  as  ambassador,  leaves  Vienna  for  Italy  (San- 
doval, 120).  Nov.  6.  He  fixes  his  residence  at  Mantua  (Id.  124). 
Nov.  18.  He  is  still  at  Mantua,  where  he  has  received  the  official 
notification  of  Cranmer’s  recall,  and  of  the  appointment  of  Hawkins ; 
and  on  the  same  day  he  delivers  his  answer  into  the  hands  of  Cran- 
mer to  take  with  him  to  England.  Thus  seven  weeks  have  elapsed 
since  the  date  of  Cranmer’s  recall ; for  which  we  may  safely  account 
by  the  supposition  that,  ignorant  of  the  emperor’s  departure  from 
Vienna,  Hawkins  proceeded  towards  that  city,  instead  of  going 
direct  to  Italy — Cranmer  was  preconized  by  the  pope  in  a consistory 
in  January  (Becchetti,  viii.  234),  thus  leaving  two  months  only  for 
his  journey  from  Mantua  to  England,  his  acceptance  of  the  arch- 
bishopric, the  mission  of  the  proctor  to  Rome,  and  his  proceedings 
there.  The  different  bulls  were  expedited  on  the  21st  and  22nd 
of  February,  and  the  3rd  of  March,  and  they  arrived  in  England 
in  sufficient  time  for  the  consecration  on  the  30th  of  the  latter 
month. 


PROTEST  OF  CRANMER. 


7 


contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  or  prejudicial  to  the  rights 
of  the  king,  or  prohibitory  of  such  reforms  as  he  might 
judge  useful  to  the  church  of  England.1  From  the 
chapter-house,  attended  by  the  same  persons,  he  pro- 
ceeded to  the  steps  of  the  high  altar,  declared  in  their 
presence  that  he  adhered  to  the  protestation  which  he 
had  already  read  in  their  hearing,  and  then  took  the 
pontifical  oath.  The  consecration  followed ; after 
which,  having  again  reminded  the  same  five  individuals 
of  his  previous  protest,  he  took  the  oath  a second  time, 
and  received  the  pallium  from  the  hands  of  the  papal 
delegates.2 

This  extraordinary  transaction  gave  birth  to  an 
animated  controversy ; the  opponents  of  the  arch- 
bishop branding  him  with  the  guilt  of  fraud  and 
perjury,  his  advocates  labouring  to  wipe  away  the 
imputation,  and  justifying  his  conduct  by  the  extra- 
ordinary circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed.  I 
will  only  observe  that  oaths  cease  to  offer  any  security, 
if  their  meaning  may  be  qualified  by  previous^rotes- 

1 See  it  in  the  original  Latin  inStrype,  App.  p.  9,  and  not  in  the 
English  translation,  which  is  very  unfaithful.  By  one  clause  he 
declared  that  it  had  never  been  his  intention  to  empower  his  proctor 
to  take  any  oath  in  his  name  contrary  to  the  oath  which  he  had 
taken  or  might  take  to  the  king ; and  yet  he  must  have  known  the 
contents  of  the  oath  to  be  taken  by  the  proctor,  and  have  given  him 
the  usual  authority  to  take  it ; otherwise  the  proctor  would  not  have 
been  admitted  to  act  in  the  court  of  Rome. 

2 The  question  of  the  privacy  or  publicity  of  Cranmer’s  protest  has 
been  set  at  rest  by  an  extract  from  the  notarial  instrument  in  Lam- 
beth MSS.,  1136,  published  by  Mr.  Todd,  i.  65.  It  proves,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  doubt,  that  he  read  the  protest  once  only,  and  that 
before  witnesses  privately  assembled  in  the  chapter-house.  In  the 
church  he  did  no  more  than  say  to  the  same  witnesses  that  he  would 
swear  in  the  sense  of  the  protest  made  by  him  already ; but  there  is 
no  evidence  that  any  one  besides  them  heard  his  words,  or  that  any 
one  else  was  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  the  protest.  It  was 
evidently  his  object  to  clothe  it  with  all  the  canonical  forms,  but  at 
the  same  time  to  conceal  its  purport  from  the  public. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


8 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


March  26. 


tations,  made  without  the  knowledge  of  the  party  who 
is  principally  interested.1 

With  an  archbishop  subservient  to  his  pleasure, 
Henry  determined  to  proceed  with  the  divorce.  The 
previous  arrangements  were  intrusted  to  the  industry 
of  Cromwell.  To  prevent  Catherine  from  opposing 
any  obstacle  to  the  proceedings  meditated  by  Cranmer, 
an  act  of  parliament  was  passed,  forbidding,  under 
the  penalty  of  premunire,  appeals  from  the  spiritual 
judges  in  England  to  the  courts  of  the  pontiff  ;2  and, 
to  furnish  grounds  for  the  intended  sentence,  the 
members  of  the  convocation  were  divided  into  two 
classes,  of  theologians  and  canonists,  and  each  was 
ordered  to  pronounce  on  a question  separately  sub- 
mitted to  its  decision.  Of  the  former  it  was  asked, 
whether  a papal  dispensation  could  authorize  a brother 
to  marry  the  relict  of  his  deceased  brother  in  the  case 
where  the  first  marriage  had  been  actually  consum- 
mated: of  the  latter,  whether  the  depositions  taken 

1 The  archbishop  himself,  in  excuse  of  his  duplicity,  wrote  after- 
wards to  Queen  Mary,  that  his  chief  6bject  was  to  be  at  liberty  to 
reform  the  church.  Pole  answered  : “ To  what  did  this  serve  but 
“ to  be  foresworn  before  you  did  swear  ? Other  perjurers  be  wont 
11  to  break  their  oath  after  they  have  sworn  ; you  break  it  before. 
“ Men  forced  to  swear  per  vim  et  metum  may  have  some  colour  of 
“ defence,  but  you  had  no  such  excuse.” — Strype’s  Chron.  App.  213. 
Some  of  his  modern  apologists  think  that  they  have  found  a parallel 
case  in  the  protest  of  Archbishop  Warham,  who  in  1532,  alarmed 
at  the  ecclesiastical  innovations  of  the  court,  recorded  in  the  strongest 
terms  his  dissent  in  his  own  name  and  the  name  of  his  church,  to 
every  statute  passed  or  to  be  passed  by  parliament  derogatory  from 
the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See,  or  subversive  of  the  rights  of  the 
church  of  Canterbury. — Wilkins,  Con.  iii.  746.  But  the  resemblance 
is  only  in  the  technical  form  and  title  of  the  instrument.  Warham 
proclaims  his  non-participation  in  the  acts  of  others ; Cranmer  his 
resolution  not  to  be  bound  by  his  own  deed , by  the  oath  which  he 
was  about  to  take  : the  one  will  never  give  his  consent  to  what  he 
disapproves  in  conscience,  the  other  will  take  the  oath  which  he 
conscientiously  disapproves,  and  will  then  break  it. 

2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  42  7. 


PREPARATORY  MEASURES. 


9 


before  the  legates  amounted  to  a canonical  proof  that 
the  marriage  between  Arthur  and  Catherine  had  been 
consummated.  The  two  questions  were  debated  for 
some  days  in  the  absence  of  the  new  archbishop  : he 
then  took  his  seat : the  votes  were  demanded ; and  on 
both  questions  answers  favourable  to  the  king  were 
carried  b}/-  large  majorities.1  As  soon  as  the  convoca- 
tion had  separated,  a hypocritical  farce  was  enacted 
between  Henry  and  Cranmer.  The  latter,  as  if  he 
were  ignorant  of  the  object  for  which  he  had  been 
made  archbishop,  wrote  a most  urgent  letter  to  the 
king,  representing  the  evils  to  which  the  nation  was 
exposed  from  a disputed  succession,  and  begging  to 
be  informed,  if  it  were  the  pleasure  of  the  sovereign 
that  he  should  hear  the  cause  of  the  divorce  in  the 
archiepiscopal  court.  This  letter,  though  its  language 
was  sufficiently  humble,  and  sufficiently  intelligible, 
did  not  satisfy  the  king  or  his  advisers  ; and  Cranmer 
was  compelled,  in  a second  letter  of  the  same  date, 
to  take  the  whole  responsibility  on  himself.  It  was, 
he  was  made  to  say,  a duty,  which  he  owed  to  God 
and  the  king,  to  put  an  end  to  the  doubts  respecting 
the  validity  of  Henry’s  marriage  ; wherefore  prostrate 
at  the  feet  of  his  majesty  he  begged  permission  to 
hear  and  determine  the  cause,  and  called  on  God  to 
witness  that  he  had  no  other  object  in  making  this 


1 Among  the  theologians  there  were  nineteen  ayes  (Burnet 
strangely  transformed  them  into  nineteen  universities,  i.  129,  but 
acknowledged  the  error  in  his  third  volume,  p.  123,  oct.)  and  sixty- 
six  noes.  The  majority  consisted  of  three  bishops,  forty-two  abbots 
and  priors,  and  the  rest  clergymen.  Of  forty-four  canonists,  only 
six  voted  against  Henry.  The  same  questions  were  answered  in  the 
same  manner  in  the  convocation  at  York,  on  the  13th  of  May,  with 
only  two  dissentient  voices  in  each  class.  I may  add  that  Carte  is 
certainly  mistaken,  when  he  supposes  this  transaction  to  have  hap- 
pened some  years  before. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


April  2. 


April  11. 


10 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  petition  than  the  exoneration  of  his  own  conscience 
a.d.  1533.  and  the  benefit  of  the  realm.1  There  was  no  longer 
any  demur.  The  king  graciously  assented  to  his  re- 
quest ; but  at  the  same  time  reminded  the  primate 
that  he  was  nothing  more  than  the  principal  minister 
of  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  belonging  to  the  crown, 
and  that  “ the  sovereign  had  no  superior  on  earth, 
“ and  was  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  any  earthly 
“ creature.”2  It  was  in  vain  that  the  French  ambassa- 
dor remonstrated  against  these  proceedings  as  contrary 
to  the  engagements  into  which  Henry  had  entered  at 
Boulogne  and  Calais.  Catherine  was  cited  to  appear 
before  Cranmer  at  Dunstable,  within  four  miles  of 
Ampthill,  where  she  resided ; and  a post  was  estab- 
lished to  convey  with  despatch  the  particulars  of  each 
day’s  transactions  to  Cromwell.  At  the  appointed 
time  the  archbishop,  with  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  as 
his  assessor,  and  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and  seven 
Mays,  others  as  counsel  for  the  king,  opened  the  court,  and 
hastened  the  trial  with  as  much  expedition  as  was 
permitted  by  the  forms  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts. 
In  his  letters  to  Cromwell  the  primate  earnestly  en- 
treated that  the  intention  of  proceeding  to  judgment 
might  be  kept  an  impenetrable  secret.  Were  it  once 
to  transpire,  Catherine  might  be  induced  to  appear, 
and,  notwithstanding  the  late  statute,  to  put  in  an 
appeal  from  him  to  the  pontiff;  a measure  which 
would  defeat  all  their  plans,  and  entirety  disconcert 
May  10.  both  himself  and  the  counsel.3  On  Saturday  the 
service  of  the  citation  was  proved,  and  the  queen,  as 
she  did  not  appear,  was  pronounced  “contumacious.” 

1 See  note  (A). 

2 State  Papers,  i.  390 — 3.  Collier,  ii.  Records,  No.  xxiv. 

s Heylin’s  Reformation,  p.  177,  edition  of  1674. 


THE  DIVORCE  PRONOUNCED.  11 

On  the  following  Monday,  after  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  that  she  had  been  served  with  a second 
citation,  she  was  pronounced  “ verily  and  manifestly 
“ contumacious and  the  court  proceeded  in  her 
absence  to  read  depositions,  and  to  hear  arguments  in 
proof  of  the  consummation  of  the  marriage  between 
her  and  Prince  Arthur.  On  the  Saturday  she  received 
a third  citation  to  appear,  and  hear  the  judgment  of 
the  court.  Catherine  took  no  notice  of  these  pro- 
ceedings ; for  she  had  been  advised  to  abstain  from 
any  act  which  might  be  interpreted  as  an  admission 
of  the  archbishop’s  jurisdiction.  Cranmer  waited  for 
the  first  open  day  (it  was  Ascension  week),  and  on 
the  Friday  pronounced  his  judgment,  that  the  mar- 
riage between  her  and  Henry  was  null  and  invalid, 
having  been  contracted  and  consummated  in  defiance 
of  the  Divine  prohibition,  and  therefore  without  force 
or  effect  from  the  very  beginning.1 

This  decision  was  communicated  to  the  king  in  a 
letter  from  the  primate,  who  with  much  gravity  ex- 
horted him  to  submit  to  the  law  of  God,  and  to  avoid 
those  censures  which  he  must  incur  by  persisting 
in  an  incestuous  intercourse  with  the  widow  of  his 
brother.2  But  what,  it  was  then  asked,  must  be  thought 

1 Rym.  xiv.  467.  Wilk.  Con.  759.  Cranmer’s  letter  to  Haw- 
kyns,  Archaeol.  xviii.  78.  Ellis,  ii.  36.  State  Pap.  i.  394 — 7. 
Both  in  the  archbishop’s  judgment  and  the  two  statutes  confirming 
it,  the  disputed  fact  of  the  consummation  of  the  marriage  between 
Arthur  and  Catherine  is  taken  as  proved. — Rym.  ibid.  Stat.  25. 
Hen.  VIII.  c.  12,  22.  It  appears  from  Bedyl’s  letter  to  Cromwell, 
that  the  whole  process  had  been  “ devysed  affore  the  kinges  grace,” 
and  that  “ my  lord  of  Cauntrebury  handled  himself  very  well,  and 
“ very  uprightly  without  eny  evydent  cause  of  suspicion  to  be  noted 
“ in  him  by  the  counsel  of  the  lady  Katerine,  if  she  had  had  any 
“ present.” — State  Pap.  i.  395. 

2 Quid  vero  ? says  Pole  in  a letter  to  Cranmer,  an  non  tecum 
ipse  ridebas,  cum  tanquam  severus  judex  regi  minas  intentares  ? — 
Poli  Epist.  de  Sac.  Euch.  p.  6.  Cremonae,  1584. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  IS33 


May  12. 


May  1 7. 


12 


HENBY  VIII. 


chap,  of  his  present  union  with  Anne  Boleyn  ? How  could 
a.d.  1533.  he  have  lawfully  effected  a new  marriage  before  the 
former  was  lawfully  annulled?  Was  the  right  of 
succession  less  doubtful  now  than  before  ? To  silence 
these  questions  Cranmer  held  another  court  at  Lam- 
May  28.  beth,  and  having  first  heard  the  king’s  proctor,  offici- 
ally declared  that  Henry  and  Anne  were  and  had 
been  joined  in  lawful  matrimony  ; that  their  marriage 
was  and  had  been  public  and  manifest ; and  that  he 
moreover  confirmed  it  by  his  judicial  and  pastoral 
authority.1  These  proceedings  were  preparatory  to 
June  1.  the  coronation  of  the  new  queen,2  which  was  per- 
formed with  unusual  magnificence,  attended  by  all 
the  nobility  of  England,  and  celebrated  with  pro- 
cessions, triumphal  arches,  and  tournaments.  The 
honours  paid  to  his  consort  gratified  the  pride  of  the 
king ; her  approaching  parturition  filled  him  with  the 
hope  of  what  he  so  earnestly  wished,  a male  heir  to 
the  crown.  He  was  under  promise  to  meet  Francis 

1 I conceive  that,  immediately  after  judgment  pronounced  by 
Cranmer,  Henry  and  Anne  were  married  again.  Otherwise,  Lee 
archbishop  of  York,  and  Tunstall  bishop  of  Durham,  must  have 
asserted  a falsehood,  when  they  told  Catherine,  that  “ after  his 
“ highness  was  discharged  of  the  marriage  made  with  her,  he  con- 
“ tracted  new  marriage  with  his  dearest  wife,  Queen  Anne.” — Stat.  4 
Pap.  i.  419.  It  is  plain  from  all  that  precedes  and  follows  this 
passage,  that  they  mean,  after  the  divorce  publicly  pronounced  by 
Archbishop  Cranmer.  Of  a private  divorce  preceding  the  marriage 
in  January,  neither  they  nor  any  others,  their  contemporaries,  had 
any  notion.  But  a second  marriage  after  the  judgment  of  the  court 
was  necessary,  otherwise  the  issue  of  Anne  could  not  have  been 
legitimate.  Henry  had,  indeed,  been  aware  of  the  irregularity  of 
marrying  her  before  a divorce  from  Catherine ; but  he  justified  his 
conduct  by  declaring,  that  he  had  examined  the  cause  in  “ the  court 
“ of  his  own  conscience,  which  was  enlightened  and  directed  by  the 
u Spirit  of  God,  who  possesseth  and  directeth  the  hearts  of  princes;” 
and  as  he  was  convinced  that  “ he  was  at  liberty  to  exercise  and 
“ enjoy  the  benefit  of  God  for  the  procreation  of  children  in  the 
“ lawful  use  of  matrimony,  no  man  ought  to  inveigh  at  this  his 
“ doing.” — Burn.  iii.  Bee.  64.  2 State  Pap.  i.  396. 


BIRTH  OF  PRINCESS  ELIZABETH. 


13* 


again  in  the  course  of  the  summer ; but,  unwilling  to 
he  absent  on  such  an  occasion,  he  despatched  Lord 
Bochford  to  the  French  court,  who,  having  first 
secured  the  good  offices  of  the  queen  of  Navarre,  the 
sister  of  the  king,  solicited  him  in  the  name  of  Anne 
— for  Henry  wished  to  appear  ignorant  of  the  pro- 
ceeding— to  put  off  the  intended  interview  till  the 
month  of  April.1  In  the  eighth  month  after  the  per- 
formance of  the  nuptial  ceremony  Anne  bore  the 
king  a child ; but  that  child,  to  his  inexpressible  dis- 
appointment, was  a female,  the  princess  Elizabeth, 
who  afterwards  ascended  the  throne.2 

As  soon  as  Cranmer  had  pronounced  judgment, 
Catherine  received  an  order  from  the  king  to  be 
content  with  the  style  of  dowager  princess  of  Wales ; 
her  income  was  reduced  to  the  settlement  made  on 
her  by  her  first  husband,  Arthur;  and  those  among 
her  dependants,  who  gave  her  the  title  of  queen,  were 
irrevocably  dismissed  from  her  service.  Still,  to  every 
message  and  menace  she  returned  the  same  answer : 
that  she  had  come  a clean  maid  to  his  bed ; that  she 
would  never  be  her  own  slanderer,  nor  own  that  she 
had  been  a harlot  for  twenty  years ; that  she  valued 
not  the  judgment  pronounced  at  Dunstable  at  a time 
when  the  cause  was  still  pending  “by  the  kings 
“ license”  at  Borne  ; pronounced,  too,  not  by  an  in- 
different judge,  but  by  a mere  shadow,  a man  of  the 
king’s  own  making;  that  no  threats  should  compel 
her  to  affirm  a falsehood  ; and  that  “ she  feared  not 
“ those  which  have  the  power  of  the  body,  but  Him 

1 Transcripts  for  N.  Rymer,  178, 

2 State  i.  407.  Hall,  212.  Cranmer’s  letter  to  Hawkyns, 
Archaeol.  xviii.  81.  I may  here  observe  that  this  was  the  last 
coronation  during  Henry’s  reign.  Of  his  four  follow  ing  wives  not 
one  was  crowned. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


Sept  7. 


14 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A’J)-  1533. 


July  11. 


Sept.  25. 


“only  that  hath  the  power  of  the  soul.”  Henry  had 
not  the  heart  to  proceed  to  extremities  against  her. 
His  repudiated  wife  was  the  only  person  who  could 
brave  him  with  impunity.1 

In  foreign  nations  the  lot  of  Catherine  became  the 
object  of  universal  commiseration  : even  in  England 
the  general  feeling  was  in  her  favour.  The  men, 
indeed,  had  the  prudence  to  be  silent ; but  the  women 
loudly  expressed  their  disapprobation  of  the  divorce ; 
till  Henry,  to  check  their  boldness  by  the  punishment 
of  their  leaders,  committed  to  the  Tower  the  wife 
of  the  viscount  Eochford,  and  the  sister-in-law  of  the 
duke  of  Norfolk.  At  Home,  Clement  was  daily  im- 
portuned by  Charles  and  Ferdinand  to  do  justice  to 
their  aunt,  by  his  own  ministers  to  avenge  the  insult 
offered  to  the  papal  authority  ; but  his  irresolution  of 
mind,  and  partiality  for  the  king  of  England,  induced 
him  to  listen  to  the  suggestions  of  the  French  am- 
bassadors, who  advised  more  lenient  and  conciliatory 
measures.  At  length,  that  he  might  appear  to  do 
something,  he  annulled  the  sentence  given  by  Cran- 
mer,  because  the  cause  was  at  the  very  time  pending 
before  himself,  and  excommunicated  Henry  and  Anne, 
unless  they  should  separate  before  the  end  of  Septem- 
ber, or  show  cause  by  their  attorneys  why  they  claimed 
to  be  considered  as  husband  and  wife.  When  Sep- 
tember came,  he  prolonged  the  term,  at  the  request 
of  the  cardinal  of  Tournon,  to  the  end  of  October; 
and  embarking  on  board  the  French  fleet,  sailed  to 
meet  Francis  at  Marseilles,  where,  he  was  assured,  a 
conciliation  between  Henry  and  the  church  of  Eome 
would  be  effected.2 

1 State  Pap.  i.  397 — 404,  415 — 420.  Collier,  ii.  Rec.  xxv. 

2 Herb.  386.  Burnet,  i.  132.  Le  Grand,  iii.  569.  It  is  re- 


WAVERING  CONDUCT  OF  HENRY. 


15 


By  the  French  monarch  this  reconciliation  was  ciiap. 
most  ardently  desired,  as  a preliminary  step  to  an  a.d.  1533. 
offensive  alliance  against  the  emperor,  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Holy  See.  But  the  mind  of  Henry 
perpetually  wavered  between  fear  and  resentment. 
Sometimes  his  apprehension  that  Clement,  in  a per- 
sonal conference,  might  debauch  the  fidelity  of  his 
ally,  induced  him  to  listen  to  the  entreaties  and  re- 
monstrances of  Francis ; at  other  times  his  love  of 
wealth  and  authority,  joined  to  his  resentment  for  the 
repeated  delays  and  refusals  of  the  pontiff,  urged  him 
to  an  open  breach  with  the  see  of  Borne.  In  con- 
formity, indeed,  with  the  promise  given  at  Calais,  the 
duke  of  Norfolk  had  proceeded  to  France  accompanied 
by  the  lord  Bochford  and  Pawlet,  Brown  and  Bryan,  August  8. 
with  a retinue  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  horsemen ; 
but  he  was  bound  by  secret  instructions  to  dissuade 
the  king  from  the  intended  interview,  and  to  offer 
him  a plentiful  subsidy,  on  condition  that  he  would 
establish  a patriarch  in  his  dominions,  and  forbid  the 
transmission  of  money  to  the  papal  treasury.  Francis 
replied  that  he  could  not  violate  the  solemn  pledge 
which  he  had  already  given ; and  doubted  not  that  at 
Marseilles,  with  a little  condescension  on  each  side, 
every  difficulty  might  be  surmounted.  The  duke 
took  his  leave,  assuring  the  king  that  the  only  thing 
which  Clement  could  now  do  to  reconcile  himself 
with  Henry  was  to  annul  the  marriage  with  the  lady 

markable  that  on  the  9th  of  July,  just  two  days  before  Clement 
annulled  the  judgment  of  Cranmer,  Henry  gave  the  royal  assent  to 
the  suspended  act,  abolishing  the  payment  of  annates  to  the  see  of 
Rome. — Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  387.  The  reason  assigned  for  the 
delay  is — “ that  by  some  gentell  wayes  the  said  exaccions  myght 
“ have  byn  redressed” — and  the  reason  for  the  king’s  assent — 
il  that  the  pope  had  made  no  answere  of  hys  mynde  therein.” — Stat. 
of  Realm,  462. 


16 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1533. 


Oct.  11. 


Catherine ; yet  he  was  so  impressed  with  the  argu- 
ments of  Francis,  that  he  prevailed  on  his  sovereign 
to  send  two  ambassadors,  the  bishop  of  Winchester 
and  Bryan,  to  supply  his  place  at  the  interview.  They 
professed  that  they  came  to  execute  the  orders  of  the 
French  monarch ; but  were  in  reality  unfurnished 
with  powers  to  do  any  act,  and  only  commissioned  to 
watch  the  progress  of  the  conferences,  and  to  send 
the  most  accurate  information  to  their  own  court. 
The  truth  was,  that  both  Henry  and  Anne  began  to 
suspect  the  sincerity  of  Norfolk,  and  were  ignorant 
whom  to  trust,  or  what  measures  to  pursue.1 

About  the  middle  of  October  Clement  made  his 
public  entry  into  Marseilles,  and  was  followed  the 
next  day  by  the  king  of  France.  The  two  sovereigns 
met  with  expressions  of  respect  and  attachment ; but 
the  king  pertinaciously  refused  to  entertain  any  other 
question  till  lie  had  received  from  the  pope  a promise 
that  he  would  do  in  favour  of  Henry  whatever  lay 
within  the  extent  of  his  authority.  To  his  surprise 
and  disappointment  he  now  learned  that  the  ambas- 
sadors were  not  authorized  to  treat  either  with  the 
pontiff  or  himself ; but  at  his  solicitation  they  des- 
patched a courier  to  request  full  powers ; and  in  the 
interval  a marriage  was  concluded  between  the  duke 
of  Orleans,  the  son  of  Francis,  and  Catherine  of 
Medici,  the  pope's  niece.  In  point  of  fortune  it  was 
a very  unequal  match ; but  the  king,  if  we  may  be- 
lieve his  own  assertion,  had  assented  to  it,  in  the  hope 
of  bringing  to  an  amicable  conclusion  the  quarrel 
between  Henry  and  the  Holy  See.2  The  reconcilia- 

1 Burnet,  iii.  74,  75. 

2 II  se  peut  dire  qu’il  a pris  line  fille  comme  toute  nue  pour 
bailler  a son  second  fils,  chose  toutes  fois  qu’il  a si  volontiers  et  si 


APPEAL  TO  A GENERAL  COUNCIL. 


17 


tion  seems  to  have  been  proposed  on  this  basis  ; that  chap 
each  party  should  reciprocally  revoke  and  forgive  a.d.  1533. 
every  hostile  measure ; and  that  the  cause  of  the 
divorce  should  be  brought  before  a consistory,  from 
which  all  the  cardinals,  holding  preferment  or  re- 
ceiving pensions  from  the  emperor,  should  be  excluded 
as  partial  judges.  Clement  had  promised  to  return 
an  answer  to  this  project  on  the  7th  of  November ; 
ihat  very  morning,  Bonner,  who  had  lately  arrived 
from  England,  requested  an  audience ; and  the  same 
afternoon  he  appealed  in  the  name  of  Henry  from  the 
pope  to  a general  council.  Both  Clement  and  Francis 
felt  themselves  offended.  The  former,  besides  the 
insult  offered  to  his  authority,  began  to  suspect  that 
he  had  been  duped  by  the  insincerity  of  the  French 
monarch ; the  latter  saw  that  he  negotiated  for  Henry 
without  possessing  his  confidence ; and  deemed  the 
appeal  a violation  of  the  hospitality  due  to  so  exalted 
a guest  under  his  own  roof.  Both  yielded  to  the 
suggestions  of  their  resentment ; both  afterwards  re- 
lented. Clement  affected  to  believe  the  assertion  of 
the  king,  that  the  appeal  opposed  no  new  obstacle 
to  a reconciliation ; Francis  despatched  the  bishop  of 
Bayonne,  now  bishop  of  Paris,  to  Henry,  to  complain 
of  his  precipitation,  and  to  request  that  he  would  con- 
sent to  the  renewal  of  the  negotiation  which  had  thus 
been  interrupted.1 

The  reader  is  aware  that  this  prelate  possessed  a 
high  place  in  the  esteem  of  the  king  of  England. 

Henry  listened  to  his  advice,  and  gratefully  accepted 
his  offer  to  undertake  the  care  of  the  royal  interests  in 

patiemment  porte,  par  le  bon  gre  qu’il  pensoit  avoir  fait  un  grand 
gain  en  faisant  cette  perte. — Le  Grand,  iii.  581. 

1 Du  Bellay’s  instructions,  apud  Le  Grand,  iii.  571 — 588.  Bur- 
net, iii.  82,  84.  Records,  p.  37 — 4 6. 

VOL.  y.  c 


18 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  the  court  of  Rome.  Of  the  instructions  with  which  he 
a.d.  1533*  was  furnished  we  are  ignorant ; but  the  English  agents 
in  that  city  were  ordered  to  thank  Clement  for  the 
assurances  which  he  had  made  to  the  king  of  his  friend- 
ship ; to  object  on  different  grounds  to  the  expedients 
which  had  been  suggested ; to  propose  that  the  royal 
cause  should  be  tried  in  England,  with  an  understand- 
ing that  the  judgment  given  there  should  receive  the 
papal  ratification ; and  to  promise  that  on  such  con- 
ditions the  kingdom  should  remain  in  full  obedience 
to  the  Apostolic  See.  They  were  also  informed  that 
this  was  not  a final  resolution,  but  that  Henry  was 
prepared  to  make  greater  concessions  in  proportion  to 
the  readiness  which  Clement  might  show  to  serve  him.1 
Stimulated  by  his  hopes,  the  bishop  of  Paris  hastened 
in  the  depth  of  winter  to  Rome ; the  French  ambas- 
sador and  the  English  agents  seconded  his  endeavours  ; 
and  so  promising  were  the  appearances,  or  so  eager 
was  his  zeal,  that  he  deceived  himself  with  the  assur- 
ances of  success.  To  Francis  he  sent  a list  of  the 
cardinals  who  would  vote  for  the  king  of  England ; to 
Henry  he  wrote  in  terms  of  exultation,  exhorting  him 
to  suspend  for  a few  days  all  measures  of  a religious 
nature  which  might  have  been  brought  before  parlia- 
ment. The  friends  of  Charles  and  Catherine  were  not 
less  sanguine  : at  their  solicitation  a consistory  was 
held  on  the  twenty-third  of  March ; the  proceedings 
in  the  cause  were  explained  by  Simonetta,  deputy 
March  2.  auditor  of  the  Rota ; and  out  of  two-and-twenty  car- 
dinals, nineteen  decided  for  the  validity  of  the  marriage, 
and  three  only,  Trivulzio,  Pisani,  and  Rodolphi,  pro- 
posed a further  delay.  Clement  himself  had  not 
expected  this  result ; but  he  acceded,  though  with 
1 Apud  Burnet,  iii.  84. 


STATUTES  RESPECTING  THE  CHURCH. 


19 


reluctance,  to  the  opinion  of  so  numerous  a majority ; chap. 
and  a definitive  sentence  was  pronounced,  declaring  a.d.  1534. 
the  marriage  lawful  and  valid,  condemning  the  pro- 
ceedings against  Catherine  of  injustice,  and  ordering 
the  king  to  take  her  hack  as  his  legitimate  wife.  The 
imperialists  displayed  their  joy  with  bonfires,  dis- 
charges of  cannon,  and  shouts  of  Viva  l’imperio,  viva 
l’Espagna.  The  bishop  and  his  colleagues  were 
overwhelmed  with  astonishment  and  despair;  while 
Clement  himself  forbade  the  publication  of  the  decree 
before  Easter,  and  consulted  his  favourite  counsellors 
on  the  means  the  most  likely  to  mollify  the  king  of 
England,  and  to  avert  the  effects  of  his  displeasure.1 

But  in  reality  it  mattered  little  whether  Clement 
had  pronounced  in  favour  of  Henry  or  against  him. 

The  die  was  already  cast.  The  moment  the  bishop  of 
Paris  was  departed,  violent  councils  began  to  prevail 
in  the  English  cabinet ; and  a resolution  was  taken 
to  erect  a separate  and  independent  church  within  the 
realm.  That  prelate  was  indeed  suffered  to  negotiate 
with  the  pontiff;  but  in  the  meantime  act  after  act 
derogatory  from  the  papal  claims  was  debated,  and 
passed  in  parliament ; and  the  kingdom  was  severed 
by  legislative  authority  from  the  communion  of  Pome 
long  before  the  judgment  given  by  Clement  could  have 
reached  the  knowledge  of  Henry.2 

1 Le  Grand,  i.  273 — 276;  iii.  630 — 638. 

a It  is  generally  believed  on  the  authority  of  Fra  Paolo  and  Du 
Bellay,  the  brother  of  the  bishop  of  Paris,  that  this  event  was  owing 
to  the  precipitation  of  Clement.  We  are  told  that  the  prelate  re- 
quested time  to  receive  the  answer  of  Henry,  which  he  expected 
would  be  favourable ; that  the  short  delay  of  six  days  was  refused  ; 
and  that  two  days  after  the  sentence  a courier  arrived,  the  bearer  of 
the  most  conciliatory  despatches.  Now  it  is  indeed  true  that  the 
bishop  expected  an  answer  to  his  letter,  and  probable  that  a courier 
arrived  after  the  sentence : but,  1 . It  is  very  doubtful  that  he  asked 

C 2 


20 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


March  30. 


The  charge  of  framing  these  bills,  and  of  conducting 
them  through  the  two  houses,  had  been  committed  to 
the  policy  and  industry  of  Cromwell,  whose  past  ser- 
vices had  been  lately  rewarded  with  a patent  for  life 
of  the  chancellorship  of  the  Exchequer,  i.  The  sub- 
mission, which  during  the  last  year  had  been  extorted 
from  the  fears  of  the  clergy,  was  now  moulded  into  the 
form  of  a statute,  while  the  preamble,  which  seemed 
to  confine  its  duration  to  the  present  reign,  was  art- 
fully omitted.  In  this  state  it  passed  the  two  houses, 
received  the  royal  assent,  and  became  part  of  the  law 
of  the  land ; but  a most  important  clause  had  been 
added  to  it : “ that  all  such  canons  and  ordinances,  as 
“ had  been  already  made,  and  were  not  repugnant  to 
“the  statutes  and  customs  of  the  realm,  or  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  crown,  should  be  used  and  enforced, 

for  a delay  till  the  courier  arrived.  For  in  his  own  account  of  the 
proceedings  he  never  mentions  it ; and  instead,  of  going  to  the  con- 
sistory to  demand  it,  was  certainly  absent,  and  went  afterwards  to 
the  pope  to  ask  the  result.  2_  It  is  certain  that  the  answer  brought 
by  the  courier  was  unfavourable  ; because  all  the  actions  of  Henry 
about  the  time  when  he  was  despatched  prove  a determination  to 
separate  entirely  from  the  papal  communion.  3.  The  judgment 
given  by  Clement  could  not  be  the  cause  of  that  separation,  because 
the  bill  abolishing  the  power  of  the  popes  within  the  realm  was 
introduced  into  the  Commons  in  the  beginning  of  March,  was  trans- 
mitted to  the  Lords  a week  later,  was  passed  by  them  five  days 
before  the  arrival  of  the  courier  (March  20),  and  received  the  royal 
assent  five  days  after  his  arrival  in  Rome  (March  30). — See  Lords’ 
Journals,  75,  77,  82.  It  was  not  possible  that  a transaction  in 
Rome  on  the  23rd  could  induce  the  king  to  give  his  assent  on  the 
30th.  There  was,  however,  appended  to  the  least  important  of  these 
acts  (that  respecting  the  abolition  of  Peter-pence  and  licenses)  a 
proviso  that  it  should  not  be  in  force  before  the  Nativity  of  St.  John 
Baptist,  unless  the  king  by  letters  patent  should  so  order  it ; and 
that,  in  the  interval,  he  might  according  to  his  pleasure  annul  or 
modify  it.  The  object  probably  was  to  keep  open  one  subject  of 
negotiation  with  Clement,  and  to  prevent  him  from  pronouncing 
judgment.  But  eight  days  later  (Ap.  7),  as  soon  as  the  news  from 
Rome  arrived,  Henry,  by  his  letters  patent,  ordered  that  act  to  be 
put  in  execution. — See  Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  471. 


STATUTES  RESPECTING  THE  CHURCH. 


21 


“ till  it  should  be  otherwise  determined  according  to 
“ the  tenor  and  effect  of  the  said  act/’  To  Henry  it 
was  sufficient  that  he  possessed  the  power  of  modifying 
the  ecclesiastical  laws  at  pleasure ; that  power  he 
never  thought  proper  to  exercise  ; and  the  consequence 
has  been,  that  in  virtue  of  the  additional  clause  the 
spiritual  courts  have  existed  down  to  the  present  time. 
2.  The  provisions  of  the  late  statute,  prohibiting  ap- 
peals to  Rome  in  certain  cases,  were  extended  to 
all  cases  whatsoever ; and  in  lieu  of  the  right  thus 
abolished,  suitors  were  allowed  to  appeal  from  the 
court  of  the  archbishop  to  the  king  in  Chancery,  who 
should  appoint  commissioners,  with  authority  to  deter- 
mine finally  in  the  cause.  This  occasional  tribunal  has 
obtained  the  name  of  the  Court  of  Delegates.  3.  In 
addition  to  the  statute,  by  which  the  payment  of  an- 
nates had  been  forbidden,  and  which  had  since  been 
ratified  by  the  king’s  letters  patent,  it  was  enacted  that 
bishops  should  no  longer  be  presented  to  the  pope  for 
confirmation,  nor  sue  out  bulls  in  his  court ; but  that, 
on  the  vacancy  of  any  cathedral  church,  the  king 
should  grant  to  the  dean  and  chapter,  or  to  the  prior 
and  monks,  permission  to  elect  the  person  whose 
name  was  mentioned  in  his  letters  missive;  that  they 
should  proceed  to  the  election  within  the  course  of 
twelve  days,  under  the  penalty  of  forfeiting  their  right, 
which  in  that  instance  should  devolve  to  the  crown ; 
that  the  prelate  named  or  elected  should  first  swear 
fealty ; after  which  the  king  should  signify  the  elec- 
tion to  the  archbishop,  or  if  there  be  no  archbishop, 
to.  four  bishops,  requiring  them  to  confirm  the  elec- 
tion, and  to  invest  and  consecrate  the  bishop  elect, 
who  might  then  sue  his  temporalities  out  of  the  king’s 
hands,  make  corporal  oath  to  the  king’s  highness  and 


CHAP. 

1. 

A.D.  1534. 


22 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  to  no  other,  and  receive  from  the  king’s  hands  restitu- 
a.d.  1534.  tion  of  all  the  possessions  and  profits  spiritual  and 
temporal  of  his  bishopric.  4.  Tt  was  also  enacted, 
that  since  the  clergy  had  recognized  the  king  for  the 
supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England,  every  kind  of 
payment  made  to  the  Apostolic  Chamber,  and  every 
species  of  license,  dispensation,  and  grant,  usually  ob- 
tained from  Home,  should  forthwith  cease  ; that  here- 
after all  such  graces  and  indulgences  should  be  sought 
of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  ; and  that  if  any 
person  thought  himself  aggrieved  by  the  refusal  of  the 
archbishop,  he  might  by  a writ  out  of  Chancery  compel 
that  prelate  to  show  cause  for  his  refusal.  By  these 
enactments,  in  the  course  of  one  short  session  was 
swept  away  what  yet  remained  of  the  papal  power  in 
England;  and  that  at  a time  when  the  judgment 
pronounced  at  Borne  was  not  only  not  known,  but 
probably  not  even  anticipated  by  Henry.1 

From  the  establishment  of  the  king’s  supremacy  the 
attention  of  parliament  was  directed  to  the  succession 
to  the  crown ; and  by  another  act  the  marriage  be- 
tween Henry  and  Catherine  was  pronounced  unlawful 
and  null,  that  between  him  and  Anne  Boleyn  lawful 
and  valid  ; the  king’s  issue  by  the  first  marriage  was 
of  course  excluded  from  the  succession,  that  by  the 
second  was  made  inheritable  of  the  crown ; to  slander 
the  said  marriage,  or  seek  to  prejudice  the  succession 
of  the  heirs  thereof,  was  declared  high  treason,  if  the 
offence  were  committed  by  writing,  printing,  or  deed; 
and  misprision  of  treason,  if  by  words  only;  and  all  the 
king’s  subjects  of  full  age,  or  who  hereafter  should  be 
of  full  age,  were  commanded  to  swear  obedience  to 


Stat.  25  Henry  VIII.  19,  20,  21. 


THE  SUCCESSION  TO  THE  CROWN. 


23 


the  same  act,  under  the  penalty  of  misprision  of 
treason.1 

This  act  deserves  the  particular  notice  of  the  reader. 
For  the  preservation  of  the  royal  dignity,  and  the 
security  of  the  succession  as  by  law  established,  it 
provided  safeguards  and  created  offences  hitherto  un- 
known ; and  thus  stamped  a new  character  on  the 
criminal  jurisprudence  of  the  country.  The  statute 
itself  was  indeed  swept  away  in  the  course  of  two  or 
three  years;  but  it  served  as  a precedent  to  subse- 
quent legislatures  in  similar  circumstances ; and  re- 
gulations, of  the  same  nature,  but  enforced  with 
penalties  of  less  severity,  have  been  occasionally 
adopted  down  to  the  present  times. 

The  king  has  now  accomplished  the  two  objects 
which  had  been  promised  by  Cromwell ; he  had  be- 
stowed on  his  mistress  the  rights  of  a lawful  wife,  and 
had  invested  himself  with  the  supremacy  of  the  church. 
But  the  opposition  which  he  had  experienced  strength- 
ened his  passions  and  steeled  his  heart  against  the 
common  feelings  of  humanity.  He  was  tremblingly 
alive  to  every  rumour  ; his  jealousy  magnified  the 
least  hint  of  disapprobation  into  a crime  against  the 
state ; and  each  succeeding  year  of  his  reign  was 
stained  with  the  blood  of  many,  often  of  noble  and 
innocent,  victims.  The  first  who  suffered  were  im- 
plicated in  the  conspiracy  attributed  to  Elizabeth 
Barton  and  her  adherents.  This  young  woman,  a 

1 Ibid.  c.  22.  Not  content  with  exacting  the  submission  of  his 
own  subjects,  Henry  ordered  an  instrument  to  be  drawn  up,  which 
should  be  executed  by  the  king  of  France,  in  which  the  latter  de- 
clared that  Henry’s  first  marriage  was  null,  the  second  valid ; that 
Mary  was  illegitimate,  Elizabeth  legitimate  ; and  promised  most 
faithfully  to  maintain  these  assertions,  even  by  force  of  arms  if 
necessary,  against  all  opponents.  It.  is  published  by  Burnet  from  a 
copy  (iii.  Rec.  84),  but  in  all  probability  was  never  executed. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534- 


24 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


1526. 


native  of  Aldington  in  Kent,  was  subject  occasionally 
to  fits,  in  the  paroxysms  of  wbicli  she  often  burst  into 
vehement  and  appalling  exclamations,  and  periodically, 
about  the  beginning  of  December,  to  a trance  of  a 
few  days’  duration,  after  which  she  would  narrate  the 
wonders  that  she  had  seen  in  the  world  of  spirits, 
under  the  guidance  and  tuition  of  an  angel.1  By  the 
neighbours,  her  sufferings  and  sayings  were  attributed 
to  some  preternatural  agency ; she  herself  insensibly 
partook  of  the  illusion ; and  Masters,  the  clergyman  of 
the  parish,  advised  her  to  quit  the  village,  and  to  enter 
the  convent  of  St.  Sepulchre  in  Canterbury.  In  her 
new  situation  her  ecstasies  and  revelations  were  mul- 
tiplied ; and  Archbishop  Warham,  at  a loss  to  form  a 
satisfactory  judgment,  appointed  Booking,  a monk  of 
Christchurch,  her  confessor.  Booking  soon  professed 
himself  a believer  in  her  inspired  character ; and  both 
Sir  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Fisher  appear  to  have 
gone  over  to  his  opinion.  The  maid  grew  less  cautious 
in  her  predictions,  and  occasionally  rose  to  higher  and 
more  dangerous  matters.  Whilst  the  great  cause 
between  Henry  and  Catherine  was  yet  pending  in  the 
court  of  the  legates,  she  informed  Wolsey,  at  the 
command  of  her  angel,  that  if  he  ventured  to  pro- 
nounce a divorce,  God  would  visit  him  with  the  most 
dreadful  chastisement;  and  after  Wolsey ’s  death  she 
stated  to  her  admirers,  that  God  had  shown  to  her  an 

1 A collection  of  these  expressions  had  been  made,  and  sent  to  the 
king,  who  showed  it  to  Sir  Thomas  More,  and  asked  his  opinion : 
“ I told  him,”  says  More,  “ that  in  good  faith  I found  nothing  in. 
“ these  words  that  I could  regard  or  esteem.  For  seeing  that  some 
u part  fell  in  rhythm,  and  that,  God  wot,  full  rude  also,  for  any 
“ reason  that  I saw  therein,  a right  simple  woman  might  in  my 
“ mind  speak  it  of  her  own  wit  well  enough.” — More’s  Letter  to 
Cromwell,  apud  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  p.  286.  Another  collection  of  her 
visions  and  prophecies  may  be  seen  in  Strype,  i.  177. 


ELIZABETH  BARTON. 


25 


evil  root  buried  in  the  earth,  out  of  which  three  shoots 
had  sprung ; a vision  interpreted  to  mean,  that  the 
king,  and  Norfolk,  and  Suffolk,  were  now  carrying 
into  execution  the  evil  projects  devised  by  the  late 
cardinal.  She  even  admonished  Henry  in  person,  at 
the  command  of  her  angel,  that  if  he  were  to  marry 
Anne  Boleyn,  while  Catherine  was  alive,  he  would 
no  longer  be  looked  upon  as  a king  by  God;  but 
would  die  the  death  of  a villein  within  a month,  and 
be  succeeded  on  the  throne  by  his  daughter  Mary. 
Years  had  elapsed  since  Henry  first  heard  of  the 
woman,  her  visions,  and  prophecies ; still  he  continued 
to  treat  her  with  ridicule  and  contempt.  But,  when 
he  had  publicly  acknowledged  his  second  marriage, 
he  deemed  it  necessary  to  close  her  mouth  and  pre- 
vent the  circulation  of  her  predictions  by  severity  of 
punishment.  Barton  was  taken  from  her  convent,  and 
examined  in  private,  first  by  Cranmer  alone,  and  then 
by  Cromwell  and  Cranmer  together.  That  by  dint  of 
argument  and  authority  they  should  draw  from  her  an 
admission  that  her  supposed> revelations  from  heaven 
were  the  delusions  of  her  own  distempered  brain,  and 
that  she  felt  a gratification  in  communicating  them  to 
others,  is  probable  enough;  and,  in  their  official  re- 
port, she  is  said  to  have  confessed  that  “ her  predic- 
“ tions  were  feigned  of  her  pwn  imagination  only,  to 
“ satisfy  the  minds  of  them  which  resorted  to  her,  and 
“ to  obtain  worldly  praise/’1  The  chief  of  her  friends 
and  advisers  had  been  already  apprehended : after 
several  examinations,  all  were  arraigned  in  the  Star- 
chamber,  and  adjudged  to  stand  during  the  sermon,  at 
St.  Paul’s  Cross,  and  to  confess  the  imposture.  From 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  448.  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  123,  286,  287;  and 
Cranmer’s  letter  in  Todd,  i.  89. 


26 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  the  cross  they  were  led  back  to  prison,  to  await  the 

a.d.  1533.  royal  pleasure.  But  the  king  was  not  satisfied : he 
determined  that  they  should  die ; and  thus  leave 
behind  them  an  awful  warning  to  those  who  might 
feel  disposed  to  make  him  the  subject  of  their  visions 
and  prophecies. 

Feb342i  A bill  of  attainder  was  brought  into  the  house  of 
Lords,  of  attainder  of  treason  against  the  maid,  and 
her  abettors,  Booking,  Masters,  Leering,  Gold,  Rich, 
and  Risley ; and  of  misprision  of  treason  against  Sir 
Thomas  More,  the  bishop  of  Rochester,  and  others 
charged  with  having  known  of  her  predictions  without 
revealing  them  to  the  king.  To  sustain  the  charge  of 
treason,  it  was  presumed,  that  the  communicators  of 
such  prophecies  must  have  had  in  view  to  bring  the 
king  into  peril  of  his  crown  and  life ; and  if  this  were 
treason,  it  followed  of  course  that  to  be  acquainted 
with  such  facts,  and  yet  conceal  them,  amounted  to 
the  legal  offence  of  misprision  of  treason.  The  accused 
were  not  brought  to  trial.  They  had  already  con- 
fessed the  imposture ; and,  if  we  may  judge  from 
similar  proceedings  during  this  reign,  it  would  be 
contended  that  the  traitorous  object  of  such  imposture 
could  not  be  doubted.  Still  to  attaint  without  trial, 
except  in  cases  of  open  rebellion,  was  so  inconsistent 
with  men’s  notions,  that  at  the  third  reading  the  Lords 

March  6.  resolved  to  inquire,  whether  it  might  stand  with  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  king  that  they  should  send  for 
Sir  Thomas  More,  and  the  rest  of  the  accused,  into 
the  Star-chamber,  and  inquire  what  defence  they 
could  make.  The  answer  is  not  recorded ; but  no 
defence  was  allowed.1  The  bill  was  read  a fourth 


1 In  place  of  a defence,  Henry  permitted  the  name  of  Sir  Thomas 


PROSECUTION-  OF  BISHOP  FISHER. 


27 


time  and  passed  by  the  Lords,  and  soon  afterwards  by 
the  Commons  also.  It  had  been  written  on  paper ; 
now  it  was  delivered  to  the  chancellor  to  be  reduced 
into  form,  and  engrossed  on  parchment ; and  in  this 
state  at  the  close  of  the  session  it  received  the  royal 
assent.  The  parties  attainted  of  treason  suffered  at 
Tyburn,  where  Barton  confessed  her  delusion,  but 
threw  the  burden  of  her  offence  on  her  companions  in 
punishment ; she  had  been,  she  said;  the  dupe  of  her 
own  credulity ; but  then  she  was  only  a simple  woman, 
whose  ignorance  might  be  an  apology  for  her  conduct, 
while  they  were  learned  clerks,  who,  instead  of  en- 
couraging, should  have  detected  and  exposed  the 
illusion.1 

Among  those  who  had  been  charged  with  misprision 
of  treason,  were  two  men  of  more  elevated  rank, 
Fisher,  bishop  of  Bochester,  and  Sir  Thomas  More, 
lately  lord  chancellor.  Fisher  was  far  advanced  in 
age,  the  last  survivor  of  the  counsellors  of  Henry  VII., 
and  the  prelate  to  whose  care  the  countess  of  Bich- 
mond  recommended  on  her  death-bed  the  youth  and 
inexperience  of  her  royal  grandson.  For  many  years 
the  king  had  revered  him  as  a parent,  and  was  accus- 
tomed to  boast  that  no  prince  in  Europe  possessed  a 
prelate  equal  in  virtue  and  learning  to  the  bishop  of 
Bochester.2  But  his  opposition  to  the  divorce  gradu- 
ally effaced  the  recollection  of  his  merit  and  services ; 
and  Henry  embraced  with  pleasure  this  opportunity 

More  to  be  scored  out.  So  I collect,  because  his  name  is  not  men- 
tioned after  this. 

1 Lords’  Journal,  i.  72.  Hall,  219 — 224.  Godwin,  53,  54. 

2 Apoh  Pol.  p.  95.  He  adds  that  on  one  occasion  the  king 
turned  round  to  him  and  said,  “ Se  judicareme  nunquam  invenisse 
“ in  universa  peregrinatione  mea,  qui  literis  et  virtute  cum  Roffense 
11  esset  comparandus.” — Ibid. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 
March  20. 

March  30. 
April  ar. 


28 


HENRY  VIII. 


\ 


chap,  of  humbling  the  spirit,  or  punishing  the  resistance  of 
a.d.  ‘1534.  his  former  monitor.1  It  was  asserted  that  he  had 
concealed  from  the  king  his  knowledge  of  Barton’s 
predictions ; and  Cromwell  sent  to  him  message  after 
message  conceived  in  language  most  imperious  and 
unfeeling,  yet  tempered  with  an  assurance  that  he 
might  obtain  pardon  by  throwing  himself  without 
reserve  on  the  royal  mercy.  But  Fisher  disdained  to 
Jan.  3i.  acknowledge  guilt,  when  he  knew  himself  to  be  in- 
nocent. He  replied  that,  after  suffering  for  six  weeks 
under  severe  illness,  he  was  unfit  to  stir  from  home ; 
that  to  answer  letters  he  found  a very  dangerous  task ; 
for  let  him  write  whatever  he  would,  it  was  taken  as 
a proof  “ of  craft,  or  wilfulness,  or  affection,  or  un- 
“ kindness;”  and  that  “to  touch  upon  the  king’s 
“ great  matter”  was  to  him  forbidden  ground.  He 
was  unwilling  to  give  offence,  or  to  betray  his  con- 
science. The  consciences  of  others  he  did  not  con- 
demn ; but  he  knew  that  he  could  not  be  saved  by 
any  conscience  but  his  own.  Henry,  however,  was 
Feb.  21.  resolute  ; the  name  of  Fisher  was  included  in  the  bill 
of  attainder  for  misprision  of  treason  ; and  the  bishop 
Feb.  27.  deemed  it  necessary  to  address  to  the  Lords  a justifica- 
tory letter,  in  which  he  contended  that  there  could  be 
no  offence  against  the  law  in  believing  on  the  testi- 
mony of  several  good  and  learned  men,  that  Barton 
was  a virtuous  woman ; with  this  impression  on  his 
mind  he  had  conversed  with  her,  and  heard  her  say, 
that  the  king  would  not  live  seven  months  after  the 
divorce.  He  had  not  indeed  communicated  this  dis- 
course to  his  sovereign ; but  he  had  two  reasons  for 
his  silence  : 1 . Because  she  spoke  not  of  any  violence 

1 I draw  this  inference  from  the  peevish  answer  of  Cromwell, 
published  by  Burnet,  i.  Records  ii.  p.  123. 


AND  SIR  THOMAS  MORE. 


29 


to  be  offered  to  Henry,  but  of  the  ordinary  visita-  chap. 
tions  of  Providence : 2.  because  she  assured  him  a.d.  ‘1534. 
that  she  had  already  apprized  the  king  of  the  re- 
velation made  to  her ; nor  had  he  any  reason  to 
doubt  her  assertion,  as  he  knew  that  she  had  been 
admitted  to  a private  audience.  He  was  therefore 
guiltless  of  any  conspiracy.  “ He  knew  not,  as  he 
“ would  answer  before  the  throne  of  Christ,  of  any 
“ malice  or  evil  that  was  intended  by  her  or  by  any 
“ other  earthly  creature  unto  the  king’s  highness.” 

But  the  Lords  dared  not  listen  to  the  voice  of  inno- 
cence in  opposition  to  the  royal  pleasure ; the  bill 
was  read  a second  time,  and  Pisher  made  an  attempt 
to  pacify  the  king  by  assuring  him  that,  if  he  had  not 
revealed  to  him  the  prediction  of  Barton,  it  was  be- 
cause he  knew  that  Henry  was  already  acquainted 
with  it ; and  because,  after  “ the  grevouse  letters 
“ and  moche  fearful  wordes”  addressed  to  him  on  ac- 
count of  his  disapproval  of  the  divorce,  he  was  loth 
to  venture  into  the  royal  presence  with  such  a tale 
pertaining  to  the  same  matter  ; wherefore  he  begged 
this  only  favour,  that  the  king  would  free  him  from 
his  present  anxiety,  and  allow  him  to  prepare  himself 
in  quiet  for  his  passage  to  another  world.  His  prayers, 
however,  and  his  reasoning  were  fruitless ; he  was 
attainted  with  the  others,  and  compounded  with  the  March  30- 
crown  for  his  freedom  and  personalities  in  the  sum  of 
three  hundred  pounds.1 

Sir  Thomas  More  had  ceased  to  fill  the  office  of 
chancellor.  By  the  king’s  desire  he  had  discussed  the 
lawfulness  of  the  divorce  with  the  Doctors  Lee,  Cran- 
mer,  Fox,  and  Nicholas ; but  the  apparent  weakness 

1 See  his  original  letters  in  Collier,  ii.  87,  and  Arch.  xxv. 

89—93- 


30 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  of  their  reasoning  served  only  to  convince  him  of  the 
a.d.  1534.  soundness  of  his  own  opinion ; and  at  his  earnest 
request,  he  was  indulged  in  the  permission  to  retire 
from  the  council-chamber,  as  often  as  that  subject 
v'as  brought  under  consideration.  Still  in  the  execu- 
tion of  his  office  he  found  himself  unavoidably  engaged 
in  matters  which  he  could  not  reconcile  with  his  con- 
science ; and  at  length  he  tendered  his  resignation,  on 
the  ground  that  age  and  infirmity  admonished  him  to 
give  his  whole  attention  to  the  concerns  of  his  soul. 
Henry,  who  had  flattered  himself  that  the  repugnance 
of  More  would  gradually  melt  away,  was  aware  how 
much  his  retirement  would  prejudice  the  royal  cause 
in  the  mind  of  the  public.  But  he  deemed  it  prudent 
to  suppress  his  feelings  ; dismissed  the  petitioner  with 
i532  professions  of  esteem,  and  promises  of  future  favour ; 
May  16.  gave  the  seals  to  Sir  Thomas  Audeley,  a lawyer  of  less 
timorous  conscience  ; and  ordered  the  new  chancellor, 
May  27.  at  his  installation,  to  pronounce  an  eulogy  on  the 
merits  of  his  predecessor,  and  to  express  the  reluct- 
ance with  which  the  king  had  accepted  his  resigna- 
tion.! From  the  court,  More  repaired  to  his  house  at 
Chelsea,  where,  avoiding  all  interference  in  politics, 
he  devoted  his  whole  time  to  study  and  prayer.  Of 
Elizabeth  Barton  he  had  heard  many  speak  with  ap- 
plause ; once  he  had  a short  conversation  with  her 
himself  in  a chapel  at  Sion  House,  but  refused  to  listen 
to  any  of  her  revelations ; and  on  another  occasion  he 
wrote  to  her,  advising  her  to  abstain  from  speaking 
of  matters  of  state,  and  to  confine  herself  to  subjects 
of  piety  in  her  communications  with  others.  To  her 
miraculous  and  prophetic  pretensions  he  appears  to 

1 Pole,  fol.  xcii.  Audeley,  if  we  may  believe  Marillac,  the  French 
ambassador,  was  grand  vendeur  de  justice. — Le  Grand,  i.  224. 


OPINIONS  OF  FISHER  AND  MORE. 


31 


have  given  no  credit ; but  he  looked  upon  her  as  a chap. 
pious  and  virtuous  woman,  deluded  by  a weak  and  a.d.  1532. 
excited  imagination.  His  letter,  however,  and  the 
preceding  interview,  afforded  a presumption  that  the 
ex- chancellor  was  also  a party  in  the  conspiracy  ; his 
name  was  introduced  into  the  bill  of  attainder ; nor 
was  it  till  he  had  repeatedly  written  to  the  king  and 
to  Cromwell,  protesting  his  innocence,  and  explaining 
the  substance  of  his  communication  with  the  pre- 
tended prophetess,  and  till  the  archbishop,  the  chan- 
cellor, the  duke  of  Norfolk,  and  Cromwell,  had 
solicited  Henry  on  their  knees,  that  he  could  appease 
the  king’s  anger,  and  procure  the  erasure  of  his  name 
from  the  list  of  victims  enumerated  in  the  bill.1 

The  authority  of  Fisher  and  More  was  great,  not 
only  in  England,  but  also  on  the  continent ; and  the 
warmest  opponents  of  the  divorce  were  accustomed 
to  boast  that  they  followed  the  opinions  of  these  two 
celebrated  men.  The  experiment  was  now  made, 
whether  the  danger  to  which  they  had  been  exposed 
had  subdued  their  spirit.  Within  a fortnight  after  1534- 
the  attainder  of  Barton  and  her  abettors,  the  bishop  Apnl  13 
and  the  ex-chancellor  were  summoned  before  the 
council  at  Lambeth,  and  were  asked  whether  they 
would  consent  to  take  the  new  oath  of  succession. 

But  the  act,  the  approval  of  which,  “ with  all  the 
“ whole  effectes  and  contentes  thereof,”  was  inserted  in 
the  oath,  was  not  confined  to  the  succession  only;  it 
embraced  other  matters  of  a very  questionable  nature  ; 
it  taught  that  no  power  on  earth  could  dispense  within 
the  degrees  prohibited  in  the  book  of  Leviticus,  and 

1 See  his  letters  in  his  printed  works,  p.  1423 — 1428  ; Burnet’s 
collection,  tom.  ii.  p.  286 — 292;  and  Strype,  i.  App.  130;  Ellis, 
ii.  48. 


32 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  that  the  marriage  of  Henry  with  Catherine  had 
a.d.  1534.  always  been  unlawful  and  of  no  effect.  More,  who 
was  introduced  the  first,  offered  to  swear  to  the  suc- 
cession alone,  but  not  to  every  particular  contained 
in  the  act,  for  reasons  which  prudence  compelled  him 
to  suppress.1  Fisher’s  answer  was  the  same  in  sub- 
stance. He  divided  the  act  into  two  parts.  To  that 
which  regarded  the  succession  he  made  no  objection, 
because  it  came  within  the  competence  of  the  civil 
power  ; to  the  other  part,  of  a theological  nature,  his 
conscience  forbade  him  to  subscribe.  Both  were  re- 
manded that  they  might  have  more  time  for  consi- 
Aprii  17.  deration.  Cranmer  advised  that  their  oaths  should  be 
received  with  the  limitations  which  they  had  proposed, 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  deprive  the  emperor  and 
his  adherents  abroad,  Catherine  and  her  advocates  at 
home,  of  the  support  which  they  derived  from  the 

1 He  has  given  an  interesting  account  of  his  examination  in  a letter. 
It  was  intimated  to  him  that,  unless  he  gave  the  reasons  for. his 
refusal,  that  refusal  would  be  attributed  to  obstinacy.  More.  It  is 
not  obstinacy,  but  the  fear  of  giving  offence.  Let  me  have  suffi- 
cient warrant  from  the  king,  that  he  will  not  be  offended,  and  I 
will  explain  my  reasons.  Cromwell.  The  king’s  warrant  would  not 
save  you  from  the  penalties  enacted  by  the  statute.  More.  In  that 
case  I will  trust  to  his  majesty’s  honour.  But  yet  it  thinketh  me, 
that  if  I cannot  declare  the  causes  with  out  peril,  then  to  leave  them 
undeclared  is  no  obstinacy.  Cranmer.  You  say  that  you  do  not 
blame  any  man  for  taking  the  oath.  It  is  then  evident  that  you  are 
not  convinced  that  it  is  blameable  to  take  it  • but  you  must  be  con- 
vinced that  it  is  your  duty  to  obey  the  king.  In  refusing  therefore 
to  take  it,  you  prefer  that  which  is  uncertain  to  that  which  is  certain. 
More.  I do  not  blame  men  for  taking  the  oath,  because  I know  not 
their  reasons  and  motives : but  I should  blame  myself,  because  I know 
that  I should  act  against  my  conscience.  And  truly  such  reasoning 
would  ease  us  of  all  perplexity.  Whenever  doctors  disagree,  we 
have  only  to  obtain  the  king’s  commandment  for  either  side  of  the 
question,  and  we  must  be  right.  Abbot  of  Westminster.  But  you 
ought  to  think  your  conscience  erroneous,  when  you  have  against 
you  the  whole  council  of  the  nation.  More.  I should,  if  I had  not 
for  me  a still  greater  council,  the  whole  council  of  Christendom. — 
More’s  Works,  p.  1429,  1447. 


THE  KING’S  SUPREMACY. 


33 


example  of  Fisher  and  More.1  But  Henry  preferred 
the  opinion  of  Cromwell,  and  determined  either  to 
extort  from  them  an  unconditional  submission,  or  to 
terrify  their  admirers  by  the  severity  of  their  punish- 
ment. The  oath  was  therefore  tendered  to  them  a 
second  time  ; and  both,  on  their  refusal  to  take  it, 
were  committed  to  the  Tower. 

Whether  it  were  from  accident  or  design,  the  form 
of  this  oath  of  succession  had  not  been  prescribed  by 
the  statute ; and  Henry,  taking  advantage  of  the 
omission,  modelled  and  remodelled  it  at  his  pleasure. 
From  the  members  of  parliament,  and  probably  from 
the  laity  (it  was  required  from  both  men  and  women), 
he  accepted  a promise  of  allegiance  to  himself  and  his 
heirs,  according  to  the  limitations  in  the  act ; but 
from  the  clergy  he  required  an  additional  declaration 
that  the  bishop  of  Borne  had  no  more  authority  within 
the  realm  than  any  other  foreign  bishop,  and  a recog- 
nition that  the  king  was  the  supreme  head  of  the 
church  of  England,  without  the  addition  of  the  quali- 
fying clause,  which  had  been  in  the  first  instance 
admitted.  The  summer  was  spent  in  administering 
the  oath,  in  receiving  the  signatures  of  the  clerg}^  and 
clerical  bodies,  and  of  the  monks,  friars,  and  nuns  in 
the  several  abbeys  and  convents;  and  in  obtaining 
formal  decisions  against  the  papal  authority  from  both 
convocations  and  the  two  universities.2 

In  autumn  the  parliament  assembled  after  the  pro- 
rogation, and  its  first  measure  was  to  enact  that  the 
king,  his  heirs  and  successors,  should  be  taken  and 
reputed  the  only  supreme  heads  on  earth  of  the 

1 See  the  letters  of  Fisher  and  Cranmer  to  Cromwell  (Strype’s 
Cranmer,  13,  14). 

2 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  771,  774,  775.  Rym.  xiv.  487 — 527. 

YOL.  V.  D 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


April  17. 


Nov.  4. 


34 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


church  of  England,1  with  full  power  to  visit,  reform, 
and  correct  all  such  errors,  heresies,  abuses,  contempts, 
and  enormities,  which  by  any  manner  of  spiritual 
authority  ought  to  be  reformed  or  corrected.  2.  To 
remedy  the  defect  in  the  late  act  of  succession,  it  was 
declared  that  the  oath  administered  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  session  was  the  very  oath  intended  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  that  every  subject  was  bound  to  take  it 
under  the  penalties  of  the  same  act.  3.  It  was 
evident  that  the  creation  of  this  new  office,  of 
head  of  the  church,  would  add  considerably  to  the 
cares  and  fatigues  of  royalty ; an  increase  of  labour 
called  for  an  increase  of  remuneration;  and,  therefore, 
by  a subsequent  act  for  “ the  augmentation  of  the 
“ royal  estate  and  the  maintenance  of  the  supremacy/’ 
the  first-fruits  of  all  benefices,  offices,  and  spiritual 
dignities,  and  the  tenths  of  the  annual  income  of  all 
livings,  wTere  annexed  to  the  crown  for  ever.  4.  To 
restrain  by  the  fear  of  punishment  the  adversaries  of 
these  innovations,  it  was  made  treason  to  wish  or  will 
maliciously,2  by  word  or  writing,  or  to  attempt  by 
craft,  any  bodily  harm  to  the  king  or  queen,  or  their 
heirs,  or  to  deprive  any  of  them  of  the  dignity,  style, 
and  name  of  their  royal  estates,  or  slanderously  and 
maliciously  to  publish  or  pronounce  by  words  or 
writing  that  the  king  is  a heretic,  schismatic,  tyrant, 
or  infidel.  5.  As  an  additional  security  a new  oath 
was  tendered  to  the  bishops,  by  which  they  not  only 


1 Without  the  saving  clause,  “ as  far  as  the  law  of  God  will 
“ allow.” 

2 It  was  not  till  after  some  struggle  that  the  king  yielded  to  the 
insertion  of  this  qualification,  “ maliciously.” — Arch.  xxv.  795.  It 
appears,  however,  that  at  More’s  trial  the  judges  contrived  to  render 
it  useless,  by  declaring  that  a refusal  to  acknowledge  the  supremacy 
was  a proof  of  internal  “ malice.” 


IS  RIGIDLY  ENFORCED. 


35 


abjured  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  and  acknowledged 
that  of  the  king,  but  also  swore  never  to  consent  that 
the  bishop  of  Rome  should  have  any  authority  within 
the  realm ; never  to  appeal,  nor  to  suffer  any  other 
to  appeal  to  him  ; never  to  write  or  send  to  him 
without  the  royal  permission ; and  never  to  receive 
any  message  from  him  without  communicating  it  im- 
mediately to  the  king,  6.  If  the  reader  think  that 
Henry  must  be  now  satisfied,  let  him  recollect  the 
secret  protest,  the  theological  legerdemain,  by  which 
Cranmer  pretended  to  nullify  the  oath  of  obedience 
which  he  was  about  to  make  to  the  pontiff.  The 
king  had  been  indeed  privy  to  the  artifice ; but  he 
was  unwilling  that  it  should  be  played  off’  upon  him- 
self ; and  on  that  account  he  now  exacted  from  each 
prelate  a full  and  formal  renunciation  of  every  protest 
previously  made,  which  might  be  deemed  contrary  to 
the  tenor  of  the  oath  of  supremacy.1 

Penal  statutes  might  enforce  conformity ; they  could 
not  produce  conviction.  The  spiritual  supremacy  of  a 
lay  prince  was  so  repugnant  to  the  notions  to  which 
men  had  been  habituated,  that  it  was  everywhere 
received  with  doubt  and  astonishment.  To  dispel 
these  prejudices,  Henry  issued  injunctions  that  the 
very  word  “pope”  should  be  carefully  erased  out  of 
all  books  employed  in  the  public  worship  ; that 
every  schoolmaster  should  diligently  inculcate  the  new 
doctrine  to  the  children  intrusted  to  his  care  ; that 

1 St.  26  Hen.  VIII.  1,  2,  3,  13.  Wilk.  Con.  iii.  780,  782.  It 
would  appear  that  some  of  the  prelates  submitted  with  reluctance  to 
this  oath,  and  that  threats  were  employed  to  enforce  obedience. — 
See  Archbishop  Lee’s  letter  to  Cromwell  (St.  Pap.  i.  428).  He 
will  do  anything  the  king  wishes,  “so  that  our  Lord  bee  not  offended, 
“and  the  unitie  of  the  faiethe  and  of  the  Catholique  Chyrche  saved 
■and  with  this  he  hopes  “ his  highness  wolbe  content.” 

D 2 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  i534. 


36 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


all  clergymen,  from  the  bishop  to  the  curate,  should 
on  every  Sunday  and  holiday  teach  that  the  king  was 
the  true  head  of  the  church,  and  that  the  authority 
hitherto  exercised  by  the  popes  was  an  usurpation, 
tamely  admitted  by  the  carelessness  or  timidity  of  his 
predecessors  ; and  that  the  sheriffs  in  each  county 
should  keep  a vigilant  eye  over  the  conduct  of  the 
clergy,  and  should  report  to  the  council  the  names, 
not  only  of  those  who  might  neglect  these  duties, 
but  also  those  who  might  perform  them  indeed, 
but  with  coldness  and  indifference.1  At  the  same 
time  he  called  on  the  most  loyal  and  learned  of  the 
prelates  to  employ  their  talents  in  support  of  his  new 
dignity  ; and  the  call  was  obeyed  by  Sampson  and 
Stokesley,  Tunstall  and  Gardiner  \ by  the  two  former, 

1 Ibid.  772.  Cranmer,  as  the  first  in  dignity,  gave  the  example 
to  his  brethren,  and  zealously  inculcated  from  the  pulpit  what  his 
learning  or  fanaticism  had  lately  discovered,  that  the  pontiff  was  the 
antichrist  of  the  Apocalypse  (Poli  Ep.  i.  444) ; an  assertion  which 
then  filled  the  Catholic  with  horror,  but  at  the  present  day  excites 
nothing  but  contempt  and  ridicule. 

2 Reginald  Pole,  that  he  might  take  no  share  in  these  transac- 
tions, had  retired  to  the  north  of  Italy ; but  Henry  sent  him 
Sampson’s  work,  and  commanded  him  to  signify  his  own  sentiments 
on  the  same  subject.  Pole  obeyed,  and  returned  an  answer  in  the 
shape  of  a large  treatise,  divided  into  four  books,  and  afterwards 
entitled  Pro  Ecclesiastic  Unitatis  Defensione.  Not  content  with 
replying  to  the  theological  arguments  of  Sampson,  he  described, 
in  that  style  of  declamatory  eloquence  in  which  he  excelled,  the 
vicious  parts  of  the  king’s  conduct  since  the  commencement  of  his 
passion  for  Anne  Boleyn.  His  Italian  friends  disapproved  of  this 
portion  of  the  work ; but  he  justified  it  on  the  ground  that  the  fear 
of  shame  was  more  likely  to  make  impression  on  the  mind  of 
Henry  than  any  other  consideration.  In  this  perhaps  he  argued 
correctly ; for  the  king,  suppressing  his  resentment,  made  him  ad- 
vantageous offers  if  he  would  destroy  the  work;  and  Pole  himself  so 
far  complied,  that  none  of  the  injuries  which  he  afterwards  received 
from  Henry  could  ever  provoke  him  to  publish  it.  That  he  wrote 
in  this  manner  from  affection,  as  he  asserts,  may  be  true ; but  it 
subjected  him  to  the  severe  censures  of  his  English  friends,  which 
have  been  followed  by  many  writers  since  his  death.  On  the  other 


OPPOSITION  TO  THE  SUPREMACY. 


37 


as  was  thought,  from  affection  to  the  cause,  by  the  chap. 
latter  through  fear  of  the  royal  displeasure.  But  a.d.  i534. 
though  an  appearance  of  conformity  was  generally 
obtained,  there  still  remained  men,  chiefly  among  the 
three  religious  orders  of  Carthusians,  Brigittins,  and 
Franciscan  Observants,  who  were  neither  to  be  re- 
claimed by  argument,  nor  subdued  by  terror.  Secluded 
from  the  commerce  and  the  pleasures  of  the  world, 
they  felt  fewer  temptations  to  sacrifice  their  con- 
sciences to  the  command  of  their  sovereign ; and 
seemed  more  eager  to  court  the  crown,  than  to  flee 
from  the  pains  of  martyrdom.  When  to  the  repri- 
mand which  two  Friars  Observants,  Pey to  and  Elstow, 
had  received  for  the  freedom  of  their  sermons, 
Cromwell  added,  that  they  deserved  to  be  inclosed 
in  a sack  and  thrown  into  the  Thames,  Peyto  replied 
with  a sarcastic  smile,  “ Threaten  such  things  to  rich 
“ and  dainty  folk,  which  are  clothed  in  purple,  fare 
“ deliciously,  and  have  their  chiefest  hopes  in  this 
“ world.  We  esteem  them  not.  We  are  joyful  that 
“ for  the  discharge  of  our  duty  we  are  driven  hence. 
u With  thanks  to  God  we  know  that  the  way  to  heaven 
“ is  as  short  by  water  as  by  land,  and  therefore  care 
“ not  which  way  we  go.”1  Peyto  and  Elstow  were 
dismissed  ; but  it  soon  appeared  that  the  whole  order 

hand  he  defended  himself  ably,  and  has  found  many  defenders. — See 
his  Epistles,  i.  436,  441,  456,  471  ; his  Apologia  ad  Angl.  Parlia- 
mentum,  i.  179;  his  Epistle  to  Edward  YI.  Ep.  iv.  307 — 321, 

340;  Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  114 — 130;  Strype,  i.  188 — 223;  and 
Quirini,  Animadversio  in  Epist.  Shelbornii,  i — lxxx. 

1 Stowe,  543.  Collect.  Anglo  Minoritica,  p.  233.  Pole  observes 
that  the  three  orders  of  Carthusians,  Brigittins,  and  Observants  (by 
this  name  the  reformed  Franciscans  were  meant)  had  at  that  period 
the  greatest  reputation  for  piety.  Quosnam,  he  asks,  habes,  cum 
ab  iis  tribus  discesseris,  qui  non  prorsus  ab  instituti  sui  authoribus 
degeneraverint  ? — Pole,  fol.  ciii.  He  notices  the  banishment  of  the 
Observants,  ibid. 


38 


HENRY  VIII. 


♦ 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1534. 


*535- 
April  29. 


May  5. 


was  animated  with  similar  sentiments ; and  Henry 
deemed  it  necessary  to  silence,  if  he  could  not  subdue, 
its  opposition.  All  the  Friars  Observants  were 
ejected  from  their  monasteries,  and  dispersed,  partly 
in  different  prisons,  partly  in  the  houses  of  the  Friars 
Conventuals.  About  fifty  perished  from  the  rigour 
of  their  confinement ; the  rest,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Wriothesley,  their  secret  friend  and  patron,  were 
banished  to  France  and  Scotland. 

But  Henry  soon  proved  that  the  late  statute  was 
not  intended  to  remain  a dead  letter.  The  priors  of 
the  three  charter  houses  of  London,  Axiholm,  and 
Belle val,  had  waited  on  Cromwell  to  explain  their 
conscientious  objections  to  the  recognition  of  the  king’s 
supremacy.  From  his  house  he  committed  them  to 
the  Tower,  and  contended  at  their  trial,  that  such 
objections,  by  “ depriving  the  sovereign  of  the  dignity, 
“ style,  and  name  of  his  royal  estate,”  amounted  to  the 
crime  of  high  treason.1  The  jury,  however,  would  not 
be  persuaded  that  men  of  such  acknowledged  virtue 
could  be  guilty  of  so  foul  an  offence.  When  Crom- 
well sent  to  hasten  their  determination,  they  de- 
manded another  day  to  deliberate  : though  a second 
message  threatened  them  with  the  punishment  reserved 
for  the  prisoners,  they  refused  to  find  for  the  crown ; 
and  the  minister  was  compelled  to  visit  them  himself, 
to  argue  the  case  with  them  in  private,  and  to  call 
intimidation  to  the  aid  of  his  arguments,  before  he 
could  extort  from  their  reluctance  a verdict  of  guilty. 
Five  days  later,  the  priors,  with  Reynolds,  a monk  of 

1 By  the  26  Henry  VIII.  c.  1,  the  king  was  declared  supreme 
head  of  the  church,  with  the  style  and  title  thereof ; by  the  same, 
c.  xiii.,  it  was  made  high  treason  to  attempt  by  words  or  writing  to 
deprive  him  “ of  the  dignity,  style,  or  name , of  his  royal  estate.” 


MORE  AND  FISHER. 


39 


Syon,  and  Haile,  a secular  clergyman,  suffered  at  Ty- 
burn ; and  they  were  soon  afterwards  followed  by 
three  monks  from  the  Charterhouse,  who  had  solicited 
in  vain  that  they  might  receive  the  consolations  of 
religion  previously  to  their  deaths.1  On  all  these  the 
sentence  of  the  law  was  executed  with  the  most  bar- 
barous exactitude.  They  were  suspended,  cut  down 
alive,  embo welled,  and  dismembered.2 

The  reader  will  have  observed  that  the  form  of  the 
oath,  for  the  refusal  of  which  More  and  Fisher  were 
committed,  had  not  then  obtained  the  sanction  of  the 
legislature.  But  the  two  houses  made  light  of  the 
objection,  and  passed  against  them  a bill  of  attainder 
for  misprision  of  treason,  importing  the  penalty  of 
forfeiture  and  perpetual  imprisonment.3  Under  this 
sentence  More  had  no  other  resource  for  the  support 
of  life#than  the  charity  of  his  friends,  administered  by 
the  hands  of  his  daughter,  Margaret  Roper.4  Fisher, 
though  in  his  seventieth  year,  was  reduced  to  a state 


1 That  the  offence  for  which  they  suffered  was  the  denial  of  the 
king’s  supremacy,  is  not  only  asserted  by  the  ancient  writers,  but 
proved  by  the  true  bill  found  against  two  of  them,  John  Rochester 
and  James  Whalworth,  which  is  still  extant. — Cleop.  E.  vi.  f.  204. 
See  Archseol.  xxv.  84. 

2 The  reader  may  see  the  sufferings  of  these,  with  those  of  the 
other  Carthusian  monks,  in  Chauncey’s  Historia  aliquot  nostri  sseculi 
Martyrum,  Moguntiae,  1550.  Also  in  Pole’s  Defensio  Eccles.  Unit, 
fol.  lxxxiv  ; and  his  Apology  to  Caesar,  p.  98.  He  bears  testimony 
to  the  virtue  of  Reynolds,  with  whom  he  was  well  acquainted,  and 
who,  quod  in  paucissimis  ejus  generis  hominum  reperitur,  omnium 
liberalium  artium  *cognitionem  non  vulgarem  habebat,  eamque  ex 
ipsis  haustam  fontibus  (fol.  ciii.). — See  also  Strype,  i.  196. 

3 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  527,  528. 

4 From  the  petition  of  More’s  “ poore  miserable  wyffe  and  children,” 
it  appears  that  Henry  at  first  allowed  her  to  retain  the  moveables 
and  the  rents  of  the  prisoner  for  their  common  support ; but  that, 
after  the  passing  of  the  last  act,  everything  was  taken  from  them. 
— See  it  in  Mr.  Bruce’s  inedited  documents  relating  to  Sir  Thomas 
More  (App.  p.  11). 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535. 


June  18. 


T534* 
N ( 1 v. 


40 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535. 

April  30. 

May  4. 


June  2. 


June  12. 


of  destitution,  in  which  he  had  not  even  clothes  to 
cover  his  nakedness.  But  their  sufferings  did  not 
mollify  the  heart  of  the  despot ; he  was  resolved  to 
triumph  over  their  obstinacy,  or  to  send  them  to  the 
scaffold.  With  this  view  they  were  repeatedly  and 
treacherously  examined  by  commissioners,  not  with 
respect  to  any  act  done  or  any  word  uttered  by  them 
since  their  attainder,  but  with  regard  to  their  private 
opinions  relative  to  the  king’s  supremacy.  If  they 
could  be  induced  to  admit  it,  Henry  would  have  the 
benefit  of  their  example ; should  they  deny  it,  he 
might  indict  them  for  high  treason.  Both  answered 
with  caution  ; the  bishop,  that  the  statute  did  not 
compel  any  man  to  reveal  his  secret  thoughts  ; More, 
that  under  the  attainder  he  had  no  longer  any  concern 
with  the  things  of  this  world,  and  should  therefore 
confine  himself  to  the  preparation  of  his  soul  for  the  • 
other.  Both  hoped  to  escape  the  snare  by  evading 
the  question ; but  Henry  had  been  advised  that  a 
refusal  to  answer  was  proof  of  malice,  and  equivalent 
to  a denial ; and  a special  commission  was  appointed 
to  try  the  two  prisoners  on  a charge  of  high  treason. 
In  the  meantime  news  arrived  that  the  pontiff,  at  a 
general  promotion  of  cardinals,  had  named  Fisher  to 
the  purple.  To  the  person  who  brought  him  the 
intelligence  the  prisoner  replied,  that,  “If  the  hat  were 
“ lying  at  his  feet  he  would  not  stoop  to  take  it  up ; 
“so  little  did  he  set  by  it.”1  Henry,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  reported  to  have  exclaimed,  “ Paul  may  send 
“ him  the  hat,  but  I will  take  care  that  he  have  never 
“ a head  to  wear  it  on.”  Previously  to  trial  more 
examinations  took  place,  but  nothing  criminal  was 
elicited ; and  therefore  the  searching  and  fatal  ques- 
1 Archaeol.  xxv.  99. 


EXECUTION  OF  FISHER. 


41 


tions  were  put  to  each  : “ Would  he  repute  and  take 
“ the  king  for  supreme  head  of  the  church  P Would  he 
“ approve  the  marriage  of  the  king  with  the  most 
“ noble  queen  Anne  to  he  good  and  lawful  ? Would 
“ he  affirm  the  marriage  with  the  lady  Catherine  to 
“ have  been  unjust  and  unlawful?”  More  replied, 
that  to  questions  so  dangerous  he  could  make  no 
answer : Fisher,  that  he  should  abide  by  his  former 
answer  to  the  first  question ; and  that  with  respect  to 
the  second,  he  would  obey  the  act,  saving  his  con- 
science, and  defend  the  succession  as  established  by 
law;  but  to  say  absolutely  Yea  or  No,  from  that  he 
begged  to  be  excused.1  These  replies  sealed  their 
doom. 

The  bishop  was  the  first  placed  at  the  bar,  and 
charged  with  having  “ falsely,  maliciously,  and  traitor- 
“ ously  wished,  willed,  and  desired,  and  by  craft 
“ imagined,  invented,  practised,  and  attempted  to 
“ deprive  the  king  of  the  dignity,  title,  and  name  of 
“ his  ro}Tal  estate,  that  is,  of  his  title  and  name  of 
“ supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England,  in  the 
<£  Tower,  on  the  7th  day  of  May  last,  when,  contrary 
“ to  his  allegiance,  he  said  and  pronounced,  in  the 
“ presence  of  different  true  subjects,  falsely,  malici- 
“ ously,  and  traitorously,  these  words  : The  hyng  oure 
“ soveraign  lord  is  not  supreme  heddyn  erthe  of  the  cherche 
“ of  Englande!'*  If  these  words  were  ever  spoken,  it  is 
plain,  both  from  his  habitual  caution  and  the  place 
where  the  offence  is  stated  to  have  been  committed,  that 
they  were  drawn  from  him  by  the  arts  of  the  commis- 

1 State  Papers,  i.  431 — 6. 

2 I quote  these  words  of  the  indictment  from  Archgeol.  xxv.  94, 
because  it  has  been  sometimes  asserted  that  Fisher  suffered,  not  for 
the  denial  of  the  supremacy,  but  for  other,  though  unknown,  acts  of 
treason. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535. 


June  14. 


June  17. 


42 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535. 


June  22. 


July  1. 


sioners  or  their  instruments,  and  could  not  have  been 
uttered  with  the  malicious  and  traitorous  intent  at- 
tributed to  him.1  He  was,  however,  found  guilty  and 
beheaded.  Whether  it  was  that  Henry  sought  to 
display  his  hatred  for  his  former  monitor,  or  to  diffuse 
terror  by  the  example  of  his  death,  he  forbade  the  body 
to  be  removed  from  the  gaze  of  the  people.  The  head 
was  placed  on  London  Bridge;  hut  the  trunk,  despoiled 
of  the  garments,  the  perquisite  of  the  executioner,  lay 
naked  on  the  spot  till  evening,  when  it  was  carried 
away  by  the  guards  and  deposited  in  the  churchyard 
of  All  Hallows,  Barking.2 

The  fate  of  Fisher  did  not  intimidate  his  fellow 
victim.  To  make  the  greater  impression  on  the 
people,  perhaps  to  add  to  his  shame  and  sufferings, 
More  was  led  on  foot,  in  a coarse  woollen  gown, 
through  the  most  frequented  streets,  from  the  Tower 
to  Westminster  Hall.  The  colour  of  his  hair,  which 
had  lately  become  grey,  his  face,  which,  though  cheer- 
ful, was  pale  and  emaciated,  and  the  staff,  with  which 
he  supported  his  feeble  steps,  announced  the  rigour 
and  duration,  of  his  confinement.  At  his  appearance 
in  this  state  at  the  bar  of  that  court  in  which  he  was 
wont  to  preside  with  so  much  dignity,  a general  feel- 
ing of  horror  and  sympathy  ran  through  the  spectators. 
Henry  dreaded  the  effect  of  his  eloquence  and  au- 

1 It  is  possible  that  the  words  charged  in  the  indictment  may  have 
been  extracted  from  the  “ certain  answer  which  he  had  once  given, 
“ and  to  which,  if  it  were  the  king’s  pleasure,  he  was  yet  content  to 
“stand.” — State  Papers,  i.  431.  That  answer  prudence  forbade  him 
to  repeat  before  the  commissioners. 

2 Mortui  corpus  nudum  prorsus  in  loco  supplicii  ad  spectaculum 
populo  relinqui  mandaverat. — Poli  Apol.  ad  Cses.  96.  Hall,  230. 
Fuller,  205.  In  this  account  of  Bishop  Fisher,  I am  greatly  in- 
debted to  a very  interesting  memoir  by  Mr.  Bruce  in  Archaeologia, 
vol.  xxv. 


TRIAL  OF  MORE. 


43 


thority ; and  therefore,  as  if  it  were  meant  to  distract 
his  attention  and  overpower  his  memory,  the  indict- 
i ment  had  been  framed  of  enormous  length  and 
unexampled  exaggeration,  multiplying  the  charges 
without  measure,  and  clothing  each  charge  with  a 
load  of  words,  beneath  which  it  was  difficult  to  dis- 
cover its  real  meaning.  As  soon  as  it  had  been  read, 
the  chancellor,  who  was  assisted  by  the  duke  of 
Norfolk,  Fitzjames,  the  chief  justice,  and  six  other 
commissioners,  informed  the  prisoner  that  it  was  still 
in  his  power  to  close  the  proceedings,  and  to  recover 
the  royal  favour  by  abjuring  his  former  opinion.  With 
expressions  of  gratitude  he  declined  the  favour,  and 
commenced  a long  and  eloquent  defence.  Though, 
he  observed,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  recollect  one- 
third  part  of  the  indictment,  he  would  endeavour  to 
show  that  he  had  not  offended  against  the  statute, 
nor  sought  to  oppose  the  wishes  of  the  sovereign.  He 
must,  indeed,  acknowledge  that  he  had  always  disap- 
proved of  the  king’s  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  but 
then  he  had  never  communicated  that  disapprobation 
to  any  other  person  than  the  king  himself,  and  not 
even  to  the  king  till  Henry  had  commanded  him  on 
his  allegiance  to  disclose  his  real  sentiments.  In  such 
circumstances  to  dissemble  would  have  been  a crime, 
to  speak  with  sincerity  was  a duty.  The  indictment 
charged  him  with  having  traitorously  sought  to  de- 
prive the  king  of  his  title  of  head  of  the  church.  But 
where  was  the  proof?  That,  on  his  examination  in 
the  Tower  he  had  said,  he  was  by  his  attainder  become 
civilly  dead ; that  he  was  out  of  the  protection  of  the 
law,  and  therefore  could  not  be  required  to  give  an 
opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  law ; and  that  his  only 
occupation  was  and  would  be  to  meditate  on  the  pas- 
sion of  Christ,  and  to  prepare  himself  for  his  own 


CHAP. 

i. 

A.D.  1535. 


44 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  death.  But  what  was  there  of  crime  in  such  an 
a.d.  1535.  answer  ? It  contained  no  word,  it  proved  no  deed 
against  the  statute.  All  that  could  be  objected  against 
him  was  silence;  and  silence  had  not  yet  been  de- 
clared treason.  2.  It  was  maintained  that  in  different 
letters  written  by  him  in  the  Tower  he  had  exhorted 
Bishop  Fisher  to  oppose  the  supremacy.  He  denied 
it.  Let  the  letters  be  produced;  by  their  contents 
he  was  willing  to  stand  or  fall.  3.  But  Fisher  on  his 
examination  had  held  the  same  language  as  More,  a 
proof  of  a conspiracy  between  them.  What  Fisher  had 
said,  he  knew  not : but  it  could  not  excite  surprise 
if  the  similarity  of  their  case  had  suggested  to  each 
similar  answers.  This  he  could  affirm  with  truth, 
that,  whatever  might  be  his  own  opinion,  he  had 
never  communicated  it  to  any,  not  even  to  his  dearest 
friends. 

But  neither  innocence  nor  eloquence  could  avert 
his  fate^/Sich,  the  solicitor-general,  afterwards  Lord 
Bicli,  now  deposed,  that  in  a private  conversation  in 
the  Tower,  More  had  said  : “ The  parliament  cannot 
“ make  the  king  head  of  the  church,  because  it  is  a 
^v“civil  tribunal  without  any  spiritual  authority/’  It 
was  in  vain  that  the  prisoner  denied  this  statement, 
showed  that  such  a declaration  was  inconsistent  with 
the  caution  which  he  had  always  observed,  and  main- 
tained that  no  one  acquainted  with  the  former  cha- 
racter of  Bich  would  believe  him  even  upon  his  oath  ; 
it  was  in  vain  that  the  two  witnesses,  who  were 
brought  to  support  the  charge,  eluded  the  expectation 
of  the  accuser  by  declaring  that,  though  they  were  in 
the  room,  they  did  not  attend  to  the  conversation ; 
the  judges  maintained  that  the  silence  of  the  prisoner 
was  a sufficient  proof  of  malicious  intention  ; and  the 
jury,  without  reading  over  the  copy  of  the  indictment 


HIS  EXECUTION. 


45 


which  had  been  given  to  them,  returned  a verdict  of 
guilty.  As  soon  as  judgment  of  death  had  been 
pronounced,  More  attempted,  and,  after  two  interrup- 
tions, was  suffered  to  address  the  court.  He  would 
now,  he  said,  openly  avow,  what  he  had  hitherto 
concealed  from  every  human  being,  his  conviction  that 
the  oath  of  supremacy  was  unlawful.  It  was,  indeed, 
painful  to  him  to  differ  from  the  noble  lords  whom  he 
saw  on  the  bench ; but  his  conscience  compelled  him 
to  bear  testimony  to  the  truth.  This  world,  however, 
had  alwavs  been  a scene  of  dissension ; and  he  still 
cherished  a hope  that  the  day  would  come  when  both 
he  and  they,  like  Stephen  and  Saul,  would  be  of  the 
same  sentiment  in  heaven.  As  he  turned  from  the 
bar,  his  son  threw  himself  on  his  knees  and  begged 
his  father’s  blessing  ; and  as  he  walked  back  to  the 
Tower,  his  daughter  Margaret  twice  rushed  through 
the  guards,  folded  him  in  her  arms,  and,  unable  to 
speak,  bathed  him  with  her  tears. 

He  met  his  fate  with  constancy,  even  with  cheerful- 
ness. When  he  was  told  that  the  king,  as  a special 
favour,  had  commuted  his  punishment  to  decapitation, 
“ God,”  he  replied,  “ preserve  all  my  friends  from  such 
“favours.”  On  the  scaffold  the  executioner  asked  his 
forgiveness.  He  kissed  him,  saying,  “ Thou  wilt  ren- 
“ der  me  to-day  the  greatest  service  in  the  power  of 
“ any  mortal : but”  (putting  an  angel  into  his  hand) 
“ my  neck  is  so  short  that  I fear  thou  wilt  gain  little 
“ credit  in  the  way  of  thy  profession.”  As  he  was  not 
permitted  to  address  the  spectators,  he  contented 
himself  with  declaring  that  he  died  a faithful  subject 
To  the  king,  and  a true  Catholic  before  God.  His  head 
was  fixed  on  London  Bridge.1 

1 Ep.  Gul.  Corvini  in  App.  ad  Epis.  Erasmi,  p.  1763.  Pole, 


CHAP. 

I. 

A 1535. 


July  6. 


46 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535. 


By  these  executions  the  king  had  proved  that 
neither  virtue  nor  talent,  neither  past  favour  nor 
past  services,  could  atone  in  his  eyes  for  the  great 
crime  of  doubting  his  supremacy.  In  England  the 
intelligence  was  received  with  deep  but  silent  sorrow ; 
in  foreign  countries  with  loud  and  general  execration.1 
The  names  of  Fisher  and  More  had  long  been  familiar 
to  the  learned ; and  no  terms  were  thought  too  severe 
to  brand  the  cruelty  of  the  tyrant  by  whom  they  had 
been  sacrificed.  But  in  no  place  was  the  ferment 
greater  than  in  Borne.  They  had  fallen  martyrs  to 

lxxxix — xciii.  Roper,  48.  More,  242.  Stapleton,  Vit.  Mor.  335. 
Lettere  di  Princ.  i.  134.  State  Trials,  i.  59.  edit.  1730.  His  death 
spread  terror  through  the  nation.  On  the  24th  of  August  Erasmus 
wrote  to  Latomus,  that  the  English  lived  under  such  a system  of 
terror,  that  they  dared  not  write  to  foreigners,  nor  receive  letters 
from  them.  Amici,  qui  me  subinde  literis  et  muneribus  dignabantur, 
metu  nec  scribunt  nec  mittuntquicquam,  neque  quicquam  a quoquam 
recipiunt,  quasi  sub  omni  lapide  dormiat  scorpius  (p.  1509). 

1 Ipse  vidi  multorum  lacrymas,  qui  nec  viderant  Morum,  nec  uilo 
officio  ab  eo  affecti  fuerant. — Ep.  Corvini,  p.  1769.  See  also  Pole, 
Ep.  iv.  317,  318.  The  king  of  France  spoke  also  of  these  execu- 
tions with  great  severity  to  the  ambassador,  and  advised  that  Henry 
should  banish  such  offenders  rather  than  put  them  to  death.  Henry 
was  highly  displeased.  He  replied  that  they  had  suffered  by  due 
course  of  law • and  “ were  well  worthy,  if  they  had  a thousand 
“ lives,  to  have  suffered  ten  times  a more  terrible  death  and  execu- 
“ tion  than  any  of  them  did  suffer.” — Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  81.  Several 
letters  were  written  to  the  ambassadors  abroad,  that  they  might 
silence  these  reports  to  the  king’s  prejudice,  by  asserting  that  both 
Fisher  and  More  had  been  guilty  of  many  and  heinous  treasons. 
But  in  no  one  mtsance  were  these  treasons  particularized.  That 
they  amounted  in  fact  to  nothing  more  than  a refusal  of  acknow- 
ledging the  king’s  supremacy,  is  plain  from  the  indictment  of 
Fisher  already  noticed,  and  from  that  of  More,  which  is  in  the  in- 
quisitio  post  mortem,  lately  edited  by  Mr.  Bruce,  App.  12 — 16,  and 
Archseol.  xxv.  370 — 4.  That  indictment  charges  him  with  saying,  in 
answer  to  the  question  of  the  king’s  supremacy,  “ that  it  was  lyke  a 
“ swerde  with  two  edges,”  on  May  7th  and  June  3rd,  and  of  deny- 
ing it  to  Sir  Richard  Rich  on  June  12th,  and  thus  attempting 
regem  de  dignitate,  titulo  et  nomine  supremi  capitis  in  terra  Angli- 
canae  ecclesiae  penitus  deprivare.  No  treason  on  any  other  subject 
is  mentioned. 


PAPAL  BULL  AGAINST  HENBY. 


47 


their  attachment  to  the  papal  supremacy ; their  blood 
called  on  the  pontiff  to  punish  their  persecutor. 
Clement  died  ten  months  before,  and  Paul  had 
hitherto  followed  the  cautious  policy  of  his  predecessor; 
but  his  prudence  was  now  denominated  cowardice  ; 
and  a bull  against  Henry  was  extorted  from  him  by 
the  violence  of  his  counsellors.  In  this  extraordinary 
instrument,  in  which  care  was  taken  to  embody  every 
prohibitory  and  vindictive  clause  invented  by  the 
most  aspiring  of  his  predecessors,  the  pontiff,  having 
first  enumerated  the  offences  of  the  king  against 
the  Apostolic  See,  allows  him  ninety,  his  fautors  and 
abettors  sixty  days  to  repent,  and  appear  at  Pome  in 
person  or  by  attorney ; and  then,  in  case  of  default, 
pronounces  him  and  them  excommunicated ; deprives 
him  of  his  crown ; declares  his  children  by  Anne,  and 
their  children  by  their  legitimate  wives,  incapable  of 
inheriting  for  several  generations ; interdicts  his  and 
their  lands  and  possessions ; requires  all  clerical  and 
monastic  bodies  to  retire  out  of  Henry’s  territories ; 
absolves  his  subjects  and  their  tenants  from  the  oaths 
of  allegiance  and  fidelity  ; commands  them  to  take  up 
arms  against  their  former  sovereign  and  lords;  dissolves 
all  treaties  and  alliances  between  Henry  and  other 
powers  as  far  as  they  may  be  contradictory  to  this 
sentence ; forbids  all  foreign  nations  to  trade  with  his 
subjects,  and  exhorts  them  to  capture  the  goods,  and 
make  prisoners  of  the  persons,  of  all  such  as  still 
adhere  to  him  in  his  schism  and  rebellion.1 

But  when  Paul  cast  his  eyes  on  the  state  of  Europe, 
when  he  reflected  that  Charles  and  Erancis,  the  only 
princes  who  could  attempt  to  carry  the  bull  into  exe- 
cution, were,  from  their  rivalry  of  each  other,  more 
1 Bullar.  Kom.  i.  704,  edit.  1673. 


CHAP. 

I. 

A.D.  1535 


1534. 
Sept.  25. 


*535- 

August  30 


48 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  j eager  to  court  the  friendship  than  to  risk  the  enmity 
a.d.  1535.  of  the  king  of  England,  he  repented  of  his  precipi- 
l tancyl.  To  publish  the  bull  could  only  irritate  Henry 
and  bring  the  papal  authority  into  contempt  and 
derision.  It  was  therefore  resolved  to  suppress  it  for 
a time ; and  this  weapon,  destined  to  punish  the 
apostasy  of  the  king,  was  silently  deposited  in  the 
papal  armoury,  to  be  brought  forth  on  some  future 
opportunity,  when  it  might  be  wielded  with  less 
danger  and  with  greater  probability  of  success.1 

1 Bullar.  Rom.  i.  708,  edit.  1673. 


49 

i * 


CHAPTER  II. 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

I.  king’s  SUPREMACY ITS  NATURE CROMWELL  MADE  VICAR- 

GENERAL BISHOPS  TAKE  OUT  NEW  POWERS II.  DISSOLUflON 

OF  MONASTERIES LESSER  MONASTERIES  SUPPRESSED — DEATH  OF 

QUEEN  CATHERINE ARREST,  DIVORCE,  AND  EXECUTION  OF  ANNE 

— INSURRECTION  IN  THE  NORTH — POLE’S  LEGATION  — GREATER 

MONASTERIES  GIVEN  TO  THE  KING III.  DOCTRINE — HENRY’S 

CONNECTIONS  WITH  THE  LUTHERAN  PRINCES ARTICLES INSTI- 
TUTION OF  A CHRISTIAN  MAN DEMOLITION  OF  SHRINES PUB- 
LICATION OF  THE  BIBLE iy.  PERSECUTION  OF  LOLLARDS 

ANABAPTISTS REFORMERS TRIAL  OF  LAMBERT POLE’S  SECOND 

LEGATION— EXECUTION  OF  HIS  RELATIONS V.  STRUGGLE  BE- 
TWEEN THE  TWO  PARTIES STATUTE  OF  THE  SIX  ARTICLES 

MARRIAGE  WITH  ANNE  OF  CLEVES — DIVORCE — FALL  OF  CROM- 
WELL  MARRIAGE  WITH  CATHERINE  HOWARD HER  EXECUTION 

— STANDARD  OF  ENGLISH  ORTHODOXY. 

I.  Henry  had  now  obtained  the  great  object  of  chap. 
his  ambition.  His  supremacy  in  religious  matter's  a .d.  i535. 
had  been  established  by  act  of  parliament ; it  had 
been  admitted  by  the  nation  at  large — the  members 
of  every  clerical  and  monastic  body  bad  confirmed  it 
by  their  subscriptions,  and  its  known  opponents  bad 
atoned  for  their  obstinacy  by  suffering  the  penalties 
of  treason.  Still  the  extent  of  bis  ecclesiastical  pre- 
tensions remained  subject  to  doubt  and  discussion. 

That  be  meant  to  exclude  the  authority  hitherto  ex- 
ercised by  the  pontiffs  was  sufficiently  evident;  but 
most  of  the  clergy,  while  they  acknowledged  the  new 
title  assumed  by  the  king,  still  maintained  that  the 
VOL.  V.  E 


50 


HENRY  VII L 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.H.  1535. 


clmrcli  had  inherited  from  her  founder  the  power  of 
preaching,  of  administering  the  sacraments,  and  of 
enforcing  spiritual  discipline  by  spiritual  censures, — a 
power  which,  as  it  was  not  derived  from,  so  neither 
could  it  be  dependent  on,  the  will  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate. Henry  himself  did  not  clearly  explain,  per- 
haps knew  not  how  to  explain,  his  own  sentiments. 
If  on  the  one  hand  he  was  willing  to  push  his  eccle- 
siastical prerogative  to  its  utmost  limits,  on  the  other 
he  was  checked  by  the  contrary  tendency  of  those 
principles  which  he  had  published  and  maintained  in 
his  treatise  against  Luther.  In  his  answer  to  the 
objections  proposed  to  him  by  the  convocation  at 
York,  he  clothed  his  meaning  in  ambiguous  language, 
and  carefully  eluded  the  real  point  in  discussion. 
“ As  to  spiritual  things,”  he  observed,  “ meaning  the 
“ sacraments,  being  by  God  ordained  as  instruments 
“of  efficacy  and  strength,  whereby  grace  is  of  his 
“ infinite  goodness  conferred  upon  his  people,  for  as 
“much  as  they  be  no  worldly  or  temporal  things, 
“ they  have  no  worldly  or  temporal  head,  but  only 
“ Christ.”  But  then  with  respect  to  those  who  ad- 
minister the  sacraments,  “ the  persons  of  priests,  their 
“ laws,  their  acts,  their  manner  of  living,  for  as  much 
“ as  they  be  indeed  all  temporal,  and  concerning  this 
“present  life  only,  in  those  we,  as  we  be  called,  be 
“ indeed  in  this  realm  caput,  and,  because  there  is  no 
“ man  above  us  here,  supremum  caput.”1 

Another  question  arose  respecting  the  manner  in 
which  the  supremacy  was  to  be  exercised.  As  the 
king  had  neither  law  nor  precedent  to  guide  him,  it 
became  necessary  to  determine  the  duties  which  be- 
longed to  him  in  his  new  capacity,  and  to  establish 
1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  764. 


CROMWELL  VICAR  GENERAL. 


51 


an  additional  office  for  the  conduct  of  ecclesiastical  chap. 
affairs.  At  its  head  was  placed  the  man  whose  coun-  a.d.  153^. 
sels  had  first  suggested  the  attempt,  and  whose  in- 
dustry had  brought  it  to  a successful  termination. 
Cromwell  already  held  the  offices  of  chancellor  of  the 
exchequer  and  of  first  secretary  to  the  king.  He  was, 
after  some  delay,  appointed  “ the  royal  vicegerent, 

“ vicar-general,  and  principal  commissary,  with  all  the 
“ spiritual  authority  belonging  to  the  king  as  head  of 
“ the  church,  for  the  due  administration  of  justice  in 
“all  cases  touching  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and 
“the  godly  reformation  and  redress  of  all  errors, 
“heresies,  and  abuses  in  the  said  church.”1  As  a 
proof  of  the  high  estimation  in  which  Henry  held  the 
supremacy,  he  allotted  to  his  vicar  the  precedence  of 
all  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  even  of  the 
great  officers  of  the  crown.  In  parliament  Cromwell 
sat  before  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury ; he  super- 
seded that  prelate  in  the  presidency  of  the  convocation. 

It  was  with  difficulty  that  the  clergy  suppressed  their™! 
murmurs  when  they  saw  at  their  head  a man  who  had 
never  taken  orders,  nor  graduated  in  any  university  ; 
but  their  indignation  increased  when  they  found  that 
the  same  pre-eminence  was  claimed  by  any  of  his 
clerks,  whom  he  might  commission  to  attend  as  his 
deputy  at  their  meetings.2 

Their  degradation,  however,  was  not  yet  consum- 
mated. It  was  resolved  to  probe  the  sincerity  of  their 
submission,  and  to  extort  from  them  a practical  ac- 
knowledgment that  they  derived  no  authority  from 
Christ,  but  were  merely  the  occasional  delegates  of 
the  crown.  We  have  on  this  subject  a singular  letter, 

1 St.  31  Hen.  VIII.  10.  Wilk.  Con.  iii.  784.  Collier,  ii.  Rec. 
p.  21.  2 Collier,  ii.  119. 

E 2 


52 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  from  Leigli  and  Ap  Rice,  two  of  the  creatures  of 
a.d.  1535.  Cromwell,  to  their  master.  On  the  ground  that  the 
plenitude  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  vested  in 
him  as  vicar-general,  they  advised  that  the  powers  of 
all  the  dignitaries  of  the  church  should  he  suspended 
for  an  indefinite  period.  If  the  prelates  claimed  au- 
thority by  divine  right,  they  would  then  be  compelled 
to  produce  their  proofs ; if  they  did  not,  they  must 
petition  the  king  for  the  restoration  of  their  powers, 
and  thus  acknowledge  the  crown  to  be  the  real  foun- 
Sept.  18.  tain  of  spiritual  jurisdiction.1  This  suggestion  was 
eagerly  adopted ; the  archbishop,  by  a circular  letter, 
informed  the  other  prelates,  that  the  king,  intending 
to  make  a general  visitation,  had  suspended  the  powers 
of  all  the  ordinaries  within  the  realm;  and  these, 
having  submitted  with  due  humility  during  a month, 
presented  a petition  to  be  restored  to  the  exercise  of 
their  usual  authority.  In  consequence  a commission 
was  issued  to  each  bishop  separately,  authorizing  him, 
during  the  king’s  pleasure,  and  as  the  king’s  deputy, 
to  ordain  persons  born  within  his  diocese,  and  admit 
them  to  livings ; to  receive  proof  of  wills ; to  deter- 
mine causes  lawfully  brought  before  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  ; to  visit  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  diocese ; 
to  inquire  into  crimes,  and  punish  them  according 
to  the  canon  law ; and  to  do  whatever  belonged  to 
the  office  of  a bishop  besides  those  things  which, 
according  to  the  sacred  writings,  were  committed  to 
his  charge.  But  for  this  indulgence  a most  singular 
reason  was  assigned;  not  that  the  government  of 
bishops  is  necessary  for  the  church,  but  that  the 
king’s  vicar-general,  on  account  of  the  multiplicity 
of  business  with  which  he  was  loaded,  could  not  be 
1 Collier,  ii.  105.  Strype,  i.  App.  144. 


DISSOLUTION  OF  MONASTERIES. 


53 


everywhere  present,  and  that  many  inconveniences 
might  arise,  if  delays  and  interruptions  were  admitted 
in  the  exercise  of  his  authority.1 

II.  Some  years  had  elapsed  since  the  bishop  of 
Paris  had  ventured  to  predict  that  whenever  the 
cardinal  of  York  should  forfeit  the  royal  favour,  the. 
spoliation  of  the  clergy  would  he  the  consequence  of 
his  disgrace.  That  prediction  was  now  verified^yThe 
example  of  Germany  had  proved  that  the  church 
might  be  plundered  with  impunity ; and  Cromwell 
had  long  ago  promised  that  the  assumption  of  the 
supremacy  should  place  the  wealth  of  the  clerical  and 
monastic  bodies  at  the  mercy  of  the  crown.2  Hence 
that  minister,  encouraged  by  the  success  of  his  former 
counsels,  ventured  to  propose  the  dissolution  of  the 
monasteries ; and  the  motion  was  received  with  wel- 
come by  the  king,  whose  thirst  for  money  was  not 
exceeded  by  his  love  of  power ; by  the  lords  of  the 
council,  who  already  promised  themselves  a consider- 
able share  in  the  spoils ; and  by  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
whose  approbation  of  the  new  doctrines  taught  him 
to  seek  the  ruin  of  those  establishments  which  proved 
the  firmest  supports  of  the  ancient  faith.  The  con- 
duct of  the  business  was  intrusted  to  the  superior 
cunning  and  experience  of  the  favourite  who  under- 
took to  throw  the  mask  of  religious  zeal  over  the 
injustice  of  the  proceedings. 

With  this  view  a general  visitation  of  the  monas- 
teries was  enjoined  by  the  head  of  the  church;  com- 

1 The  suspension  is  in  Collier,  ii.  Rec.  p.  22 ; the  form  of  resto- 
ration of  episcopal  powers  in  Burnet,  i.  Rec.  iii.  No.  xiv.  The 
latter  was  issued  to  different  bishops  in  October  (Harmer,  52).  See 
also  Collier,  ii.  Rec.  p.  33.  A similar  grant  was  afterwards  made 
to  all  new  bishops,  before  they  entered  on  the  exercise  of  their 
authority.  2 Poli  Apol.  ad  Cass.  12 1. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1535. 


54 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A-D-  I53> 


missioners  of  inquiry  by  his  lay  vicar  were  selected ; 
and  to  these  in  pairs  were  allotted  particular  districts 
for  the  exercise  of  their  talents  and  industry.  The 
instructions  which  they  received  breathed  a spirit  of 
piety  and  reformation,  and  were  formed  on  the  model 
of  those  formerly  used  in  episcopal  and  legatine  visita- 
tions ; so  that  to  men  not  intrusted  with  the  secret,  the 
object  of  Henry  appeared,  not  the  abolition,  but  the 
support  and  improvement  of  the  monastic  institute.1 
But  the  visitors  themselves  were  not  men  of  high 
standing  or  reputation  in  the  church.  They  were 
clerical  adventurers  of  very  equivocal  character,  who 
had  solicited  the  appointment,  and  had  pledged  them- 
selves to  effect,  as  far  as  it  might  be  possible,  the 
object  of  that  appointment,  that  is,  the  extinction  of 
the  establishments  which  they  should  visit.2  They 

1 The  inquiries,  amounting  to  eighty-six  questions,  were  drawn 
up  by  Dr.  Layton  ; and  to  these  were  added  injunctions  in  twenty- 
six  articles,  to  be  left  in  each  house  by  the  visitors.  Both  are 
to  be  found  in  Cleop.  E.  iv.  12 — 24.  The  injunctions  regard 
the  papal  power,  the  supremacy,  the  succession  to  the  crown,  the 
internal  discipline  of  the  monastery,  its  revenues,  and  the  giving  of 
alms.  The  sixteenth  teaches  the  difference  between  the  ceremonies 
and  the  substance  of  religious  worship ; and  seems  to  have  furnished  • 
the  model  for  six  of  the  surrenders  published  by  Rymer,  xiv.  610 
— 612. 

2 I will  transcribe  the  letter  of  Dr.  Layton  : “ Pleaset  yowe  to 
“ understand,  that  whereas  ye  intende  shortly  to  visite,  4and  belike 
“ shall  have  many  suiters  unto  yowe  for  the  same,  to  be  your  eom- 
“ missioners,  if  hit  might  stond  with  your  pleasilreyjthat  Dr.  Lee 
“ and  I might,  have  committed  unto  us  the  north  contre,  and  to 
“ begyn  in  Lincoln  dioces  northwards  here  from  London,  Chester 
“ dioces,  Yorke,  and  so  furth  to  the  bouder  of  Scotlande,  to  ryde 
“ downe  one  syde,  and  come  up  the  other.  Ye  shall  be  well  and 
u faste  assuryede  that  ye  shall  nether  fynde  monke,  chanone,  &c. 
“ that  shall  do  the  kyng’s  hygness  so  good  servys,  nether  be  so 

trusty,  trewe  and  faithful  to  yowe.  Ther  ys  nether  monasterie, 
‘‘  sell,  priorie,  nor  any  other  religiouse  howse  in  the  north,  but  other 
‘‘  Dr.  Lee  or  I have  familiar  acquaintance  within  x or  xii  mylls  of 
<‘hyt,  so  that  no  knaverie  can  be  hyde  from  us  ...  . we  know 
‘‘  and  hav£  experience  both  of  the  fassion  of  the  contre  and  rudeness 
‘‘  of  the  pepul.” — Cleop.  E.  iv.  fol.  11. 


SUPPRESSION  OF  MONASTERIES. 


55 


proceeded  at  first  to  the  lesser  houses  only.  There  chap. 
they  endeavoured  by  intimidation  to  extort  from  the  a.d.  1*535. 
inmates  a surrender  of  their  property  to  the  king ; 
und,  when  intimidation  failed,  were  careful  to  collect 
all  such  defamatory  reports  and  information  as  might 
afterwards  serve  to  justify  the  suppression  of  the  re- 
fractory brotherhood.  With  respect  to  their  chief 
object,  the  visitors  were  unsuccessful.  During  the 
whole  winter  they  could  procure  the  surrender  of  no 
more  than  seven  houses  f hut  from  their  reports  a 
statement  was  compiled  and  laid  before  the  parliament, 
which,  while  it  allotted  the  praise  of  regularity  to  the 
greater  monasteries,  described  the  less  opulent  as 
abandoned  to  sloth  and  immorality.  To  some  men! 
it  appeared  contrary  to  experience  that  virtue  should 
flourish  most  where  the  temptations  to  vice  were  more  ; 
numerous,  and  the  means  of  indulgence  more  plentiful ; 
hut  they  should  have  recollected  that  the  abbots  and 
priors  of  the  more  wealthy  houses  were  lords  of  parlia- 
ment, and  therefore  present  to  justify  themselves  and 
their  communities ;{  the  superiors"  of  The  others  were 
at  a distance,  unacquainted  with  the  charges  brought 
against  them,  and  of  course  unable  to  clear  their  own 
characters,  or  to  expose  the  arts  of  their  accusers. 

A hill  was  introduced,  and  hurried,  though  not  with- 
cut  opposition,  through  the  two  houses,1 2  giving  to 
the  king  and  his  heirs  all  monastic  establishments, 


1 These  were  in  Kent,  Langdon,  Folkstone,  Bilsington,  and  St. 
Mary's  in  Dover;  Merton  in  Yorkshire;  Hornby  in  Lancashire, 
and  Tiltey  in  Essex. — Ibid.  555 — 558.  See  a letter  from  the 
visitors  in  Strype,  i.  260. 

2 Spelman  tells  us  that  it  stuck  long  in  the  house  of  Commons, 
and  would  not  pass  till  the  king  sent  for  the  Commons,  and  told 
them  he  would  have  the  bill  pass,  or  take  off  some  of  their  heads. 
— Hist,  of  Sacrilege,  p.  183. 


56 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536 


the  clear  yearly  value  of  which  did  not  exceed  two 
hundred  pounds,  with  the  property  belonging  to  them 
both  real  and  personal,  vesting  the  possession  of  the 
buildings  and  lands  in  those  persons  to  whom  the 
king  should  assign  them  by  letters  patent,  but  obliging 
the  grantees,  under  the  penalty  of  ten  marks  per 
month,  to  keep  on  them  an  honest  house  and  house- 
hold, and  to  plough  the  same  number  of  acres  which 
had  been  ploughed  on  an  average  of  the  last  twenty 
years.  It  was  calculated  that  by  this  act  about  three 
hundred  and  eighty  communities  would  be  dissolved ; 
and  that  an  addition  of  thirty- two  thousand  pounds 
would  be  made  to  the  yearly  revenue  of  the  crown, 
besides  the  present  receipt  of  one  hundred  thousand 
in  money,  plate,  and  jewels. 

This  parliament  by  successive  prorogations  had  now 
continued  six  years,  and,  by  its  obsequious  compliance 
with  every  intimation  of  the  royal  will,  had  deserved, 
if  any  parliament  could  deserve,  the  gratitude  of  the 
king.  To  please  him  it  had  altered  the  succession, 
had  new  modelled  the  whole  frame  of  ecclesiastical 
government,  and  had  multiplied  the  prerogatives,  and 
added  to  the  revenue  of  the  crown.  It  was  now  dis- 
solved ; and  commissioners  were  named  to  execute 
the  last  act  for  the  suppression  of  the  smaller  monas- 
teries. Their  instructions  ordered  them  to  proceed  to 
each  house  within  a particular  district,  to  announce  its 
dissolution  to  the  superior  and  the  brotherhood,  to  make 
an  inventory  of  the  effects,  to  secure  the  convent  seal 
and  the  title-deeds,  and  to  dispose  of  the  inhabitants 
according  to  certain  rules.  But  the  statute  which 
vested  these  establishments  in  the  king,  left  it  to  his 
discretion  to  found  them  anew — a provision,  which, 
while  it  left  a gleam  of  hope  to  the  sufferers,  drew 


DESTITUTION  OF  THE  MONASTIC  ORDERS.  57 


considerable  sums  of  money  into  the  pockets  of  Crom- 
well and  his  deputies.  The  monks  of  each  community 
flattered  themselves  with  the  expectation  of  escaping 
from  the  general  shipwreck,  and  sought  by  presents 
and  annuities  to  secure  the  protection  of  the  minister 
and  the  visitors.  On  the  other  hand,  the  favourites,  to 
whom  Henry  had  already  engaged  to  give  or  sell  the 
larger  portion  of  these  establishments,  were  not  less 
liberal  in  their  offers,  nor  less  active  in  their  endea- 
vours to  hasten  the  dissolution.1 

The  result  of  the  contest  was,  that  more  than  a 
hundred  monasteries  obtained  a respite  from  immediate 
destruction ; and  of  these  the  larger  number  were 
founded  again  by  the  king's  letters  patent,  though 
each  of  them  paid  the  price  of  that  favour  by  the 
surrender  of  a valuable  portion  of  its  possessions. 
With  respect  to  the  suppressed  houses,  the  superior 
received  a pension  for  life ; of  the  monks,  those  who 
had  not  reached  the  age  of  twenty-four  were  absolved 
from  their  vows,  and  sent  adrift  into  the  world  with- 
out any  provision  ; the  others  were  divided  into  two 
classes.  Such  as  wished  to  continue  in  the  profession, 
were  dispersed  among  the  larger  monasteries ; those 
who  did  not'  were  told  to  apply  to  Cranmer  or  Crom- 
well, who  would  find  them  employments  suited  to 
their  capacities.  The  lot  of  the  nuns  was  more  dis- 
tressing. Each  received  a single  gown  from  the  king, 
and  was  left  to  support  herself  by  her  own  industry,  or 
to  seek  relief  from  the  charity  and  commiseration  of 
others.2 

1 Cromwell  made  a rich  harvest  during  the  whole  time  of  the  sup- 
pression.— See  letters  on  the  subject,  Cleop.  E.  iv.  fol.  135,  146, 
205,  216,  220,  257,  264,  269. 

2 See  Burnet,  192,  222,  Rec.  iii.  p.  142,  157;  Rym.  xiv.  574. 
Stevens  has  published  an  interesting  document,  containing  the  names 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


58 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


During  tlie  suppression  of  these  establishments  the 
public  attention  had  been  in  a great  measure  diverted 
to  a succession  of  most  important  events, — the  death  of 
Catherine,  the  divorce  and  execution  of  Anne  Boleyn, 
and  the  king’s  marriage  with  Jane  Seymour. 

1 . During  the  three  last  years  Catherine  with  a small 
establishment1  had  resided  on  one  of  the  royal  manors. 
In  most  points  she  submitted  without  a murmu-r  to 
the  royal  pleasure ; but  no  promise,  na  intimidation 
could  induce  her  to  forego  the  title  of  queen,  or  to  ac- 
knowledge the  invalidity  of  her  marriage,  or  to  accept 
the  offer  made  to  her  by  her  nephew,  of  a safe  and 
honourable  asylum  either  in  Spain  or  Flanders.  It 
was  not  that  she  sought  to  gratify  her  pride,  or  to 
secure  her  personal  interests ; but  she  still  cherished  a 
persuasion  that  her  daughter  Mary  might  at  some 
future  period  be  called  to  the  throne,  and  on  that 
account  refused  to  stoop  to  any  concession  which 
might  endanger  or  weaken  the  right  of  the  princess. 
In  her  retirement  she  was  harassed  with  angry  mes- 
sages from  the  king : sometimes  her  servants  were 
discharged  for  obeying  her  orders ; sometimes  were 
sworn  to  follow  the  instructions  which  they  should 
receive  from  the  court.  Forest,  her  confessor,  was 


of  those  houses  which  had  obtained  a respite  from  instant  destruc- 
tion, the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  they  had  been  granted, 
and  the  names  of  such  as  had  been  confirmed  or  founded  again  at 
the  time  when  the  paper  was  written.  Forty-six  had  been  certainly 
confirmed  ; the  writer  had  his  doubts  respecting  five  others  ; and  out 
of  this  number  thirty-three  had  previously  been  promised  by  Henry 
to  different  persons. — Stevens,  Monast.  ii.  App.  p.  17.  From  the 
surrenders  which  were  afterwards  made,  it  appears  that  several 
more  in  the  catalogue  were  confirmed  after  the  date  of  the  docu- 
ment. 

1 In  one  of  her  letters  she  observes,  that  she  had  not  even  the 
means  of  riding  out. — Hearne’s  Sylloge,  at  the  end  of  Titus  Livius, 
P-  77- 


DEATH  OF  CATHERINE. 


59 


imprisoned  and  condemned  for  high  treason ; the  act 
of  succession  was  passed  to  defeat  her  claim ; and  she 
believed  that  Fisher  and  More  had  lost  their  lives 
merely  on  account  of  their  attachment  to  her  cause. 
Her  bodily  constitution  was  gradually  enfeebled  by 
mental  suffering ; and  feeling  her  health  decline,  she 
repeated  a request,  which  had  often  been  refused,  that 
she  might  see  her  daughter,  once  at  least  before  her 
death;  for  Mary,  from  the  time  of  the  divorce,  had 
been  separated  from  the  company,1  that  she  might  not 
imbibe  the  principles  of  her  mother.  But  at  the  age 
of  twenty  she  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  injuries 
which  both  had  suffered;  and  her  resentment  was 
daily  strengthened  by  the  jealousy  of  a hostile  queen, 
and  the  caprice  of  a despotic  father.2  Henry  had  the 
cruelty  to  refuse  this  last  consolation  to  the  unfor- 
tunate Catherine,3  who  from  her  death-bed  dictated  a 
short  letter  to  “her  most  dear  lord,  king,  and  hus- 

1  At  the  commencement  of  their  separation,  Catherine  wrote  to  her 
a letter  of  advice  : “ I beseech  yon  agree  to  God’s  pleasure  with  a 
4<  merry  heart,  and  be  you  sure,  that  without  fail  he  will  not  suffer 
u you  to  perish  if  you  beware  to  offend  him.  . . . Answer  the  king’s 
“ message  with  a few  words,  obeying  the  king  your  father  in  every 
“ thing  save  only  that  you  will  not  offend  God,  and  lose  your  soul. 
“ . . . And  now  you  shall  begin,  and  by  likely  hood  I shall  follow. 

1 set  not  a rush  by  it;  for  when  they  have  done  the  uttermost  they 
“ can,  then  I am  sure  of  the  amendment.  I pray  you  recommend 
“ me  unto  my  good  lady  of  Salisbury,  and  pray  her  to  have  a good 
“ heart,  for  we  never  come  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  but  by 
u troubles.” — Apud  Burnet,  ii.  Records,  p.  243. 

2 One  great  cause  of  offence  was  that  she  persisted  in  giving  to 
herself  the  title  of  princess,  and  refused  it  to  the  infant  Elizabeth, 
whom  she  called  nothing  but  sister..  On  this  account  she  was 
banished  from  court,  and  confined  to  different  houses  in  the  country. 
— See  two  of  her  letters  in  Foxe,  tom.  ii.  lib.  ix.  p.  13 1 ; and  in 
Hearne’s  Titus  Livius,  p.  144. 

3 Cum  hoc  idem  filia  cum  lacrymis  postularet,  mater  vix  extremum 
spiritum  ducens  flagitaret,  quod  hostis  nisi  crudeliSsimus  nunquam 
negasset,  conjux  a viro,  mater  pro  filia,  impetrari  nonpotuit. — Poli 
Apol.  ad  Carol.  162. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


60 


HENRY  VIII. 


• chap.  “ band.”  Slie  conjured  him  to  think  of  his  salvation  ; 
a.d.  1536.  forgave  him  all  the  wrongs  which  he  had  done  her  ; 
recommended  their  daughter  Mary  to  his  paternal  pro- 
tection ; requested  that  her  three  maids  might  be 
provided  with  suitable  marriages,  and  that  her  other 
servants  might  receive  a year’s  wages.  Two  copies 
were  made  by  her  direction,  of  which  one  was  delivered 
to  Henry,  the  other  to  Eustachio  Chapuys,  the  im- 
perial ambassador,  with  a request  that,  if  her  husband 
should  refuse,  the  emperor  would  reward  her  servants. 
As  he  perused  the  letter,  the  stern  heart  of  Henry 
was  softened ; he  even  shed  a tear,  and  desired  the 
ambassador  to  bear  to  her  a kind  and  consoling 
Jau. 8.  message.  But  she  died  before  his  arrival;  and  was 
buried  by  the  king’s  direction  with  becoming  pomp  in 
the  abbey  church  of  Peterborough.1  The  reputation 
which  she%  had  acquired  on  the  throne  did  not  suffer 
from  her  disgrace.  Her  affability  and  meekness,  her 
piety  and  charity,  had  been  the  theme  of  universal 
praise  ; the  fortitude  with  which  she  bore  her  wrongs 
raised  her  still  higher  in  the  estimation  of  the  public. 

2.  Four  months  did  not  elapse  before  Catherine  was 
followed  to  the  grave  b}^  Anne  Boleyn.  But  their 
end  was  very  different.  The  divorced  queen  died 
peaceably  in  her  bed ; her  successful  rival  died  by  the 
sword  of  the  headsman  on  the  scaffold.  The  obstinacy 
of  Henry  had  secured,  as  long  as  the  divorce  was  in 
agitation,  the  ascendancy  of  Anne ; but  when  that 
obstacle  was  removed,  his  caprice  sought  to  throw  off 
the  shackles  which  he  had  forged  for  himself.  His 
passion  for  her  gradually  subsided  into  coldness  and 
neglect;  and  the  indulgent  lover  became  at  last  a 

1 Sanders,  144.  Herbert,  432.  Heylin’s  Reform.  179.  Her 
will  is  published  by  Strype,  i.  App.  169.  See  note  (B). 


DISGRACE  OF  QUEEN  ANNE.  G1 

suspicious  and  unfeeling  master.  Thus  in  the  begin- 
ning of  1535  we  accidentally  discover  her  deeply  in 
disgrace  with  him,  and  pitifully  imploring  the  aid  of 
the  king  of  France  to  reconcile  her  with  her  husband. 
For  that  purpose  she  had  employed  Gontier,  a gentle- 
man belonging  to  the  French  embassy,  from  whose 
despatch  we  learn  that  on  his  return  to  England,  he 
waited  on  the  king  and  queen  at  Greenwich  in  the  with- 
drawing-room  after  dinner.  Having  paid  his  compli- 
ment to  Henry,  he  presented  to  Anne,  who  was  sitting 
at  a distance,  a letter  from  Montmorency,  the  prime 
minister  of  Francis.  She  read  it  with  evident  marks  of 
disappointment  and  alarm.  Why,  she  asked  Gontier, 

, had  he  tarried  so  long  ? His  stay  in  France  had  en- 
gendered doubts,  suspicions,  and  strange  imaginings  in 
the  mind  of  the  king  her  husband.1  It  was  necessary 
that  Montmorency  and  his  master  should  remove 
them  immediately,  for  she  was  now  on  the  brink  of 
ruin.  If  Francis  did  not  take  her  cause  in  hand,  she 
was  a distracted,  a lost  woman.  She  was  in  greater 
pain  and  distress  than  before  her  marriage .2  But  she 

could  not,  she  said,  speak  to  him  as  fully  as  she 
wished.  Her  agitation  was  too  visible,  and  the  eyes 
of  the  king  and  the  whole  company  were  fixed  upon 
her.  She  dared  not  write  to  him,  nor  see  him  again, 


1 Doutes,  etranges  pensemens — doutes  et  soupscons. — Le  La- 
boureur,  i.  405. 

2 Qu’elle  ne  demeure  affolee  et  perdue ; car  elle  se  voit  proche  de 
«ela,  et  plus  en  peine  et  ennuy  que  paravant  ses  espousailles.  Does 
not  this  message  to  Francis,  that  “ she  was  in  greater  distress  now 
“ than  before  her  marriage,”  seem  to  import  that  she  had  ex- 
perienced the  friendly  aid  of  the  French  king  on  some  past  occasion 
of  distress,  which  had  been  removed  by  her  marriage  ? The  reader 
will  recollect  how  earnestly  and  covertly  she  had  requested  him  to 
invite  her,  as  it  were  spontaneously,  to  the  interview  of  the  two 
monarchs  in  1532. — See  vol.  iv.  p.  568. 


CHAP. 

II. 

-D*  IS3S- 


Feb.  3. 


62 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1535, 


iS36- 
Jan.  29. 


nor  converse  with  him  any  longer.  With  these  words, 
she  turned  aside.  Henry  immediately  walked  into 
the  ball-room ; the  dancing  began,  and  the  queen 
remained  unnoticed  behind.1  We  have  no  clue  to 
the  misunderstanding  between  the  parties ; but  it  is 
plain  from  this  graphic  description  in  the  despatch  of 
Gontier,  that  Anne  did  not  always  enjoy  amidst  the 
splendours  of  royalty  those  halcjmn  days  which  she 
had  anticipated. 

But  whatever  were  her  griefs  at  that  time,  they 
passed  away,  and  were  forgotten.  She  thought  no 
more  of  becoming  a lost  woman,  and  at  the  death  of 
Catherine  made  no  secret  of  her  joy.  Out  of  respect 
for  the  Spanish  princess,  the  king  had  ordered  his 
servants  to  wear  mourning  on  the  day  of  her  burial ; 
but  Anne  dressed  herself  in  robes  of  yellow  silk,  and 
openly  declared  that  she  was  now  indeed  a queen, 
>mee  she  had  no  longer  a competitor.  In  this,  how- 
ever, she  was  fatally  deceived.  Among  her  maids  was 
one  named  Jane  Seymour,  the  daughter  of  a knight 
of  Wiltshire,  who,  to  equal  or  superior  elegance  of 
person,  added  a gentle  and  playful  disposition,  as  far 
removed  from  the  Spanish  gravity  of  Catherine  as  from 
that  levity  of  manner  which  Anne  had  acquired  in  the 
French  court.  In  the  midst  of  her  joy  the  queen 
accidentally  discovered  Seymour  sitting  on  the  king’s 
knee.  The  sight  awakened  her  jealousy  ; in  a few 
days  she  felt  the  pains  of  premature  labour,  and  was 
delivered  of  a dead  male  child.  To  Henry,  who  most 
anxiously  wished  for  a son,  the  birth  of  Elizabeth  had 
proved  a bitter  disappointment ; on  this,  the  second 
failure  of  his  hopes,  he  could  not  suppress  his  vexation. 

1 See  Le  Labourour,  i.  405.  Palamedes  Gontier  was  secretary  to 
Philippes  de  Chabot,  admiral  of  France. 


QUEEN  ANNE'S  MISCARRIAGE. 


63 


Anne  is  reported  to  have  answered,  that  he  had  no  ciiap. 
one  to  blame  but  himself,  that  her  miscarriage  had  a.d.  1536. 
been  owing  to  his  fondness  fbr~her  maid.1 

Unfortunately,  if  Henry  had  "Been" unfaithful,  she 
herself,  by  her  levity  and  indiscretion,  had  furnished 
employment  to  the  authors  and  retailers  of  scandal. 

Eeports  injurious  to  her  honour  had  been  circulated 
at  court ; they  had  reached  the  ear  of  Henry,  and  some 
notice  of  them  had  been  whispered  to  Anne  herself. 

The  king,  eager  to  rid  himself  of  a woman  whom  he 
no  longer  loved,  referred  these  reports  to  the  council ; 
and  a committee  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the 
charges  against  the  queen.  It  consisted  of  the  lord  April  25 
chancellor,  the  dukes  of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  her  own 
father,  and  several  earls  and  judges  ; who  reported 
that  sufficient  proof  had  been  discovered  to  convict 
her  of  incontinence,  not  only  with  Brereton,  Norris, 
and  Weston,  of  the  privy  chamber,  and  Smeaton,  the 
king’s  musician,  but  even  with  her  own  brother  lord 
Rochford.2  They  began  with  Brereton,  whom  they  April  28. 
summoned  on  the  Thursday  before  May-day,  and  com- 
mitted immediately  to  the  Tower.  The  examination  April  3i. 
of  Smeaton  followed  on  the  Sunday,  and  the  next  May x* 
morning  he  was  lodged  in  the  same  prison.  On  that 
day  the  lord  Rochford  appeared  as  principal  challenger 
in  a tilting  match  at  Greenwich,  and  was  opposed  by 
Sir  Henry  Norris  as  principal  defendant.  The  king 
and  Anne  were  both  present ; and  it  is  said  that,  in 
one  of  the  intervals  between  the  courses,  the  queen, 
through  accident  or  design,  dropped  her  handkerchief 

1 Sanders,  147.  Heylin,  263.  Wyat  in  Singer’s  Cavendish,  443. 

2 His  name  was  George.  He  had  been  summoned  to  the  first 
parliament  after  her  marriage  with  Henry  by  the  style  of  George 
Bullen  de  Rochford,  chevalier. 


64 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  from  the  balcony ; that  Norris,  at  whose  feet  it  fell, 
a.d.  i'536.  took  it  up  and  wiped  his  face  with  it ; and  that  Henry 
instantly  changed  colour,  started  from  his  seat,  and 
retired.  This  tale  was  probably  invented  to  explain 
what  followed  : but  the  match  was  suddenly  inter- 
rupted ; and  the  king  rode  back  to  Whitehall  with 
only  six  persons  in  his  train,  one  of  whom  was  Norris, 
hitherto  an  acknowledged  favourite  both  with  him 
and  the  queen.  On  the  way  Henry  rode  with  Norris 
apart,  and  earnestly  solicited  him  to  deserve  pardon 
by  the  confession  of  his  guilt.  He  refused,  strongly 
maintaining  his  innocence,  and,  on  his  arrival  at  West- 
minster, was  conducted  to  the  Tower. 

Anne  had  been  left  under  custody  at  Greenwich. 
The  next  morning  she  received  an  order  to  return  by 
May  2.  water  ; but  was  met  on  the  river  by  the  lord  chancellor, 
the  duke  of  Norfolk,  and  Cromwell,  who  informed  her 
that  she  had  been  charged  with  infidelity  to  the  king’s 
bed.  Falling  on  her  knees,  she  prayed  aloud  that,  if 
she  were  guilty,  God  might  never  grant  her  pardon. 
They  delivered  her  to  Kyngstone,  the  lieutenant  of 
the  Towei.  Her  brother  Bochford  had  already  been 
sent  there;  Weston  and  Smeaton  followed;  and  pre- 
parations were  made  to  bring  all  the  prisoners  to 
immediate  trial.1 

From  the  moment  of  her  confinement  at  Greenwich 
Anne  had  foreseen  her  fate,  and  abandoned  herself  to 
despair.  Her  affliction  seemed  to  produce  occasional 

1 Rochford,  Weston,  and  Norris  had  stood  high  in  the  king’s 
favour . The  two  first  often  played  with  him  for  large  sums  at 
shovelboard,  dice,  and  other  games,  and  also  with  the  lady  Anne. — 
Privy  Purse  Expenses,  passim.  Norris  was  the  only  person  whom 
he  allowed  to  follow  him  into  his  bed-chamber. — Archseol.  iii.  155. 
Smeaton,  though  of  mean  origin,  was  in  high  favour  with  Henry. 
He  is  mentioned  innumerable  times  in  the  Privy  Purse  Expenses. 


ANNES  CONDUCT  IN  PRISON. 


G5 


aberrations  of  intellect.  Sometimes  she  would  sit  ciiap. 
absorbed  in  melancholy,  and  drowned  in  tears ; and  a.d.  1536. 
then  suddenly  assume  an  air  of  unnatural  gaiety,  and 
indulge  in  immoderate  bursts  of  laughter.  To  those 
who  waited  on  her  she  said  that  she  should  be  a saint 
in  heaven ; that  no  rain  would  fall  on  the  earth  till 
she  were  delivered  from  prison ; and  that  the  most 
grievous  calamities  would  oppress  the  nation  in 
punishment  of  her  death.  But  at  times  her  mind 
was  more  composed ; and  then  she  gave  her  attention 
to  devotional  exercises,  and  for  that  purpose  requested 
that  a consecrated  host  might  be  placed  in  her  closet. 

The  apartment  allotted  for  her  prison  was  the  same 
in  which  she  had  slept  on  the  night  before  her  corona- 
tion. She  immediately  recollected  it,  saying  that  it 
was  too  good  for  her ; then,  falling  on  her  knees,  ex- 
claimed, “ Jesus,  have  mercy  on  me  !”  This  exclama- 
tion was  succeeded  by  a flood  of  tears,  and  that  by  a 
fit  of  laughter.  To  Kyngstone,  the  lieutenant  of  the 
Tower,  she  protested,  “ I am  as  clear  from  the  com- 
“ pany  of  man,  as  for  sin,  as  I am  clear  from  you.  I 
“ am  told  that  I shall  be  accused  by  three  men ; and 
“ I can  say  no  more  but  nay,  though  you  should  open 
“ my  body.”  Soon  afterwards  she  exclaimed  in  great 
anguish,  “ 0 ! Norris,  hast  thou  accused  me  ? Thou 
“ art  in  the  Tower  with  me ; and  thou  and  I shall  die 
“ together.  And  thou,  Mark  (Smeaton),  thou  art  here 
“ too ; Mr.  Kyngstone”  (turning  to  the  lieutenant), 

“ I shall  die  without  justice.”  He  assured  her,  that 
if  she  were  the  poorest  subject  in  the  realm,  she  would 
still  have  justice  ; to  which  she  replied  with  a loud 
burst  of  laughter. 

Under  the  mild  administration  of  justice  at  the 
VOL.  v.  F 


66 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


present  day,  the  accused  is  never  required  to  condemn 
himself ; hut  in  former  times  every  artifice  was  em- 
ployed to  draw  matter  of  proof  from  the  mouth  of 
the  prisoner  by  promises  and  threats,  by  private  ex- 
aminations in  the  presence  of  commissioners,  and 
ensnaring  questions  put  by  the  warders  and  attendants. 
Whatever  was  done  or  uttered  within  the  walls  of  the 
Tower,  was  carefully  recorded,  and  transmitted  to  the 
council.  Mrs.  Cosin,  one  of  the  ladies  appointed  to 
wait  on  the  queen,  asked,  why  Norris  had  said  to  her 
almoner  on  Saturday  last,  that  he  could  swear  for  her 
that  she  was  a good  woman.  Anne  replied  : “ Marry, 
“ I hade  him  do  so ; for  I asked  him  why  he  did  not 
“ go  through  with  his  marriage ; and  he  made  answer 
“ that  he  would  tarry  a time.  Then,  said  I,  you  look 
“ for  dead  men’s  shoes  ; for,  if  aught  but  good  should 
“ come  to  the  king”  (Henry  was  afflicted  with  a 
dangerous  ulcer  in  the  thigh),  “ you  would  look  to 
“ have  me.  He  denied  it ; and  I told  him  that  I 
“ could  undo  him,  if  I would.”  But  it  was  of  Weston 
that  she  appeared  to  be  most  apprehensive,  because 
he  had  told  her  that  Norris  frequented  her  company 
for  her  sake,  and  not,  as  was  pretended,  to  pay  his 
addresses  to  Madge,  one  of  her  maids  ; and  when  she 
reproached  him  with  loving  a kinswoman  of  hers  more 
than  his  own  wife,  he  had  replied  that  he  loved 
her  better  than  both  the  others.  When  Mrs.  Stonor, 
another  attendant,  observed  to  her  that  Smeaton  was 
treated  more  severely  than  the  other  prisoners,  for  he 
was  in  irons,  she  replied  that  the  reason  was,  because 
he  was  not  a gentleman  by  birth ; that  he  had  never 
been  in  her  chamber  but  once,  and  that  was  to  play  on 
a musical  instrument;  and  that  she  had  never  spoken 
to  him  from  that  day  till  the  last  Saturday,  when  she 


ANNE  DECLARES  HER  INNOCENCE. 


67 


asked  him  why  he  appeared  so  sad,  and  he  replied  that 
a look  from  her  sufficed  him.1 

Of  the  five  male  prisoners  four  persisted  in  main- 
taining their  innocence  before  the  council.  Smeaton, 
on  his  first  examination,  would  admit  only  some  sus- 
picious circumstances ; but  on  the  second  he  made  a 
full  disclosure  of  guilt,  and  even  Norris,  yielding  to 
the  strong  solicitation  of  Sir  William  Eitzwilliam, 
followed  his  example.  Anne  had  been  interrogated  at 
Greenwich.  With  her  answers  we  are  not  acquainted  ; 
but  she  afterwards  complained  of  the  conduct  of  her 
uncle  Norfolk,  who,  while  she  was  speaking,  shook  his 
head,  and  said,  “Tut, tut.”  She  observed  enigmatically, 
that  Mr.  Treasurer  was  all  the  while  in  the  forest 
of  Windsor;  and  added  that  Mr.  Comptroller  alone 
behaved  to  her  as  a gentleman.  At  times  she  was 
cheerful,  laughed  heartily,  and  ate  her  meals  with  a 
good  appetite.  To  Kyngstone  she  said.  “ If  any  man 
“ accuse  me,  I can  say  but  nay ; and  they  can  bring 
“ no  witness.”2 

I have  related  these  particulars,  extracted  from  the 
letters  of  the  lieutenant,  that  the  reader  may  form 
some  notion  of  the  state  of  the  queen’s  mind  during 
her  imprisonment,  and  some  conjecture  respecting  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  the  charge  on  which  she  suffered. 
From  them  it  is  indeed  plain  that  her  conduct  had 

1 These  particulars  are  taken  from  the  letters  of  the  lieutenant, 
and  may  be  seen  in  Herbert,  446 ; Burnet,  i.  199 ; Strype,  i.  280 — 
283,  and  Ellis,  ii.  53 — 62. 

2 Strype,  i.  282,  and  the  letters  of  Cromwell  and  Baynton,  Heylin, 
264.  I have  not  noticed  Anne’s  letter  to  the  king,  supposed  to  be 
written  by  her  in  the  Tower ; because  there  is  no  reason  for  believing 
it  authentic.  It  is  said  to  have  been  found  among  Cromwell’s  papers, 
but  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  queen’s  genuine  letters  in  language 
or  spelling,  or  writing  or  signature. — See  Fiddes,  197. 

F 2 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


68 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  been  imprudent ; that  she  had  descended  from  her 
a.d.  ^536.  high  station  to  make  companions  of  her  men-servants; 

and  that  she  had  even  been  so  weak  as  to  listen  to 
their  declarations  of  love.  But  whether  she  rested 
here,  or  abandoned  herself  to  the  impulse  of  licentious 
desire,  is  a question  which  probably  can  never  be 
determined.  The  records  of  her  trial  and  conviction 
have  mostly  perished,  perhaps  by  the  hands  of  those 
who  respected  her  memory ; and  our  judgment  is  held 
in  suspense  between  the  contradictory  and  unauthen- 
ticated statements  of  her  friends  and  enemies.  By 
some  we  are  told  that  the  first  disclosure  was  made 
by  a female  in  her  service,  who,  being  detected  in  an 
unlawful  amour,  sought  to  excuse  herself  by  alleging 
the  example  of  her  mistress ; by  others  that  the  sus- 
picion of  the  king  was  awakened  by  the  jealousy  of 
Lady  Bochford,  whose  husband  had  been  discovered 
either  lying  on,  or  leaning  over,  the  bed  of  his  sister. 
But  that  which  wrought  conviction  in  the  royal  mind 
was  a deposition  made  upon  oath  by  the  Lady  Wing- 
field on  her  death-bed ; of  which  the  first  lines  only 
remain,  the  remainder  having  been  accidentally  or 
designedly  destroyed.1  # This,  however,  with  the  depo- 
sitions of  the  other  witnesses,  was  embodied  in  the 
bill  of  indictment,  and  submitted  to  the  grand  juries 
of  Kent  and  Middlesex,  because  the  crimes  laid  to 
the  charge  of  the  prisoners  were  alleged  to  have  been 
May  10.  committed  in  both  counties.1 2  The  four  commoners 

1 Burnet,  i.  197.  We  still  possess  the  most  important  of  the 
few  documents  seen  by  Burnet,  and  some  others  of  which  he  was 
ignorant,  particularly  Constantyne’s  Memoir  in  Archasol.  xxiii. 

2 In  the  indictment  the  offence  with  Norris  was  laid  on  12th  Oct. 
1 533?  with  Brereton  on  the  8th  Dec.  of  the  same  year,  with 
Weston  on  20th  May,  1534,  with  Smeaton  on  26th  April,  1535, 
with  her  brother  on  the  5th  Nov.  of  the  same  year.  We  are  in- 


ANNE  TRIED  AND  CONDEMNED.  G9 

were  arraigned  in  the  court  of  King’s  Bench.  Smea-  CI^P- 
ton  pleaded  guilty  ; Norris  recalled  his  previous  con-  a.d.  1536. 
fession;  all  were  convicted,,  and  received  sentence  of  Mayi2 
death.1 

the  case  of  the  queen  was  without  prece- 
dent in  English  history ; and  it  was  determined  to 
arraign  her  before  a commission  of  lords,  similar  to 
that  which  had  condemned  the  late  duke  of  Buck- 
ingham. The  duke  of  Norfolk  was  appointed  high  May  *5- 
steward,  with  twenty-six  peers  as  assessors,  and  opened 
the  court  in  the  hall  of  the  Tower.  To  the  bar 
of  this  tribunal,  the  unhappy  queen  was  led  by  the 
constable  and  lieutenant,  and  was  followed  by  her 
female  attendants.  The  indulgence  of  a chair  was 
granted  to  her  dignity  or  weakness.  The  indictment 
stated  that,  inflamed  with  pride  and  carnal  desires  of 
the  body,  she  had  confederated  with  her  brother,  Lord 
Rochford,  and  with  Norris,  Brereton,  Weston,  and 
Smeaton,  to  perpetrate  divers  abominable  treasons ; 
that  she  had  permitted  each  of  the  five  to  lie  with 
her  several  times ; that  she  had  said  that  the  king 
did  not  possess  her  heart ; and  had  told  each  of  them 
in  private,  that  she  loved  him  better  than  any  other 
man,  to  the  slander  of  the  issue  begotten  between 


debted  to  the  industry  of  Mr.  Turner  for  the  discovery  both  of  the 
indictment,  and  the  preceding  commission  among  the  Birch  MSS. 
4293- 

1 The  records  of  these  trials  have  perished ; but,  if  the  reader 
•consider  with  what  promptitude,  and  on  what  slight  presumptions 
(see  the  subsequent  trials  of  Dereham  and  Culpeper),  juries  in  this 
reign  were  accustomed  to  return  verdicts  for  the  crown,  he  will 
hesitate  to  condemn  these  unfortunate  men  on  the  sole  ground  of 
their  having  been  convicted.  The  case  of  Smeaton  was  indeed  different. 
He  confessed  the  adultery ; but  we  know  not  by  what  arts  of  the 
commissioners,  under  what  influence  of  hope  or  terror,  that  con- 
fession was  obtained  from  him.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 
rack  was  then  in  use  for  prisoners  of  Smeaton’s  rank  in  life. 


70 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  her  and  the  king:  and  that  she  had,  in  union  with  her 

ii.  . . . 

a.d.  1536.  confederates,  imagined  and  devised  several  plots  for 
the  destruction  of  the  king’s  life.  According  to  her 
friends  she  repelled  each  charge  with  so  much  modesty 
and  temper,  such  persuasive  eloquence,  and  convincing 
argument,  that  every  spectator  anticipated  a verdict 
of  acquittal ; but  the  lords,  satisfied  perhaps  with  the 
legal  proofs  furnished  by  the  confession  of  Smeaton, 
and  the  conviction  of  the  other  prisoners,  pronounced 
her  guilty  on  their  honour ; and  the  lord  high  steward, 
whose  eyes  streamed  with  tears  whilst  he  performed 
the  unwelcome  office,  condemned  her  to  be  burnt  or 
beheaded  at  the  king’s  pleasure.  Anne,  according  to 
the  testimony  or  the  fiction  of  a foreign  poet,  instantly 
burst  into  the  following  exclamation  : — “ O ! Father, 
“ 0 ! Creator,  thou  knowest  I do  not  deserve  this 
“ death.”  Then  addressing  herself  to  the  court,  “ My 
“ lords,  I do  not  arraign  your  judgment.  You  may 
“ have  sufficient  reason  for  your  suspicions ; but  I 
“ have  always  been  a true  and  faithful  wife  to  the 
“ king.”1  As  soon  as  she  was  removed,  her  brother 
occupied  her  place,  was  convicted  on  the  same  evidence, 
and  condemned  to  lose  his  head,  and  to  be  quartered 
as  a traitor.2 

1 It  is  extraordinary  that  we  have  no  credible  account  of  the 
behaviour  of  this  unfortunate  queen  on  her  trial.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  she  would  maintain  her  innocence,  and  therefore  I have 
admitted  into  the  text  that  exclamation,  which  is  generally  attri- 
buted to  her.  It  comes  to  us,  however,  on  very  questionable 
authority,  that  of  Meteren,  the  historian  of  the  Netherlands,  who 
says  that  he  transcribed  it  from  some  verses  in  the  Platt-Deutsch 
language,  by  Crispin,  lord  of  Milherve,  a Dutch  gentleman  present 
at  the  trial : so  that  Burnet  himself  has  some  doubt  of  its  truth. 
“I  leave  it  thus,”  says  he,  “without  any  other  reflection  upon 
“ it,  but  that  it  seems  all  over  credible.” — Burnet,  iii.  181,  edit. 
Nares. 

2 Burnet,  i.  201,  202  ; iii.  1 19 ; St.  28  Hen.  VIII.  7.  It  is  sup- 


FURTHER  VENGEANCE  OF  HENRY. 


71 


By  the  result  of  this  trial  the  life  of  Anne  was  for-  chap. 
feited  to  the  law ; but  the  vengeance  of  Henry  had  a.d.  1536. 
prepared  for  her  an  additional  punishment  in  the 
degradation  of  herself  and  her  daughter.  On  the  day 
after  the  arrest  of  the  accused,  he  had  ordered  Cran- 
mer  to  repair  to  the  archiepiscopal  palace  at  Lambeth, 
but  with  an  express  injunction  that  he  should  not 
venture  into  the  royal  presence.  That  such  a message 
at  such  a time  should  excite  alarm  in  the  breast  of 
the  archbishop,  will  not  create  surprise ; and  the  next 
morning  he  composed  a most  eloquent  and  ingenious  May  3. 
epistle  to  the  king.  Prevented,  he  said,  from  address- 
ing his  grace  in  person,  he  deemed  it  his  duty  to 
exhort  him  in  writing,  to  bear  with  resignation  this, 
the  bitterest  affliction  that  had  ever  befallen  him.  As 
for  himself,  his  mind  was  clean  amazed.  His  former 
good  opinion  of  the  queen  prompted  him  to  think  her 
innocent ; his  knowledge  of  the  king’s  prudence  and 
justice  induced  him  to  believe  her  guilty.  To  him 
she  had  proved,  after  the  king,  the  best  of  benefactors  ; 
wherefore  he  trusted  that  he  might  be  allowed  to 
wish  and  pray  that  she  might  establish  her  innocence  ; 
but,  if  she  did  not,  lie  would  repute  that  man  a faith- 
less subject,  who  did  not  call  for  the  severest  punish- 
ment on  her  head,  as  an  awful  warning  to  others. 

He  loved  her  formerly,  because  he  thought  that  she 
loved  the  gospel  ;l  if  she  were  guilty,  every  man 

posed  that  the  charge  of  conspiracy  against  the  king’s  life  was 
introduced  into  the  indictment  merely  for  form  ; yet  I observe  that 
the  lord  chancellor  takes  it  as  proved  in  his  speech  to  the  two 
houses  of  parliament  in  presence  of  Henry.  He  reminds  them  twice 
of  the  great  danger  to  which  the  king  had  been  exposed  during  his 
late  marriage,  from  the  plots  laid  for  his  life  by  Anne  and  her 
accomplices. — Journals,  p.  84. 

1 From  this  and  similar  expressions  the  queen  has  been  repre- 
sented a Protestant.  She  was  no  more  a Protestant  than  Henry. 


72 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


would  hate  her  in  proportion  to  his  love  of  the  gospel. 
Still  he  hoped  that  as  the  king  had  not  begun  the 
reformation  through  his  affection  for  her,  but  through 
his  love  of  the  truth,  he  would  not  permit  her  mis- 
conduct to  prejudice  that  important  work  in  his 
opinion.  But  the  alarm  of  the  archbishop  was  with- 
out any  real  foundation.  Henry  had  no  other  object 
than  to  intimidate,  and  by  intimidating  to  render  him 
more  ductile  to  the  royal  pleasure.  He  had  already 
written,  but  had  not  despatched  his  letter,  when  he 
was  summoned  to  meet  certain  commissioners  in  the 
Star-chamber,  who  laid  before  him  the  proofs  of  the 
queen’s  offence,  and  acquainted  him  with  the  duty 
^vhich  was  expected  from  him.  He  had  formerly 
dissolved  the  marriage  between  Henry  and  Catherine ; 
he  was  now  required  to  dissolve  that  between  Henry 
and  Anne.1 

It  must  have  been  a most  unwelcome  and  painful 
task.  He  had  examined  that  marriage  juridically ; 
had  pronounced  it  good  and  valid ; and  had  confirmed 

It  is  plain  from  several  circumstances  that  his  religion  was  hers. 
The  word  “gospel”  in  the  archbishop’s  letter  meant  nothing  more, 
or  the  use  of  it  would  have  accelerated  her  ruin. 

1 The  letter  is  published  by  Burnet  (i.  200),  and  certainty  does 
credit  to  the  ingenuity  of  the  archbishop  in  the  perilous  situation 
in  which  he  thought  himself  placed  : but  I am  at  a loss  to  discover 
in  it  any  trace  of  that  high  courage,  and  chivalrous  justification  of 
the  queen’s  honour,  which  have  drawn  forth  the  praises  of  Burnet 
and  his  copiers.  In  the  postscript  the  archbishop  adds  : “ They”  (the 
commissioners)  “ have  declared  unto  me  such  things,  as  your  grace’s 
“ pleasure  was  they  should  make  me  privy  unto ; for  the  which  I 
“ am  most  bounden  unto  your  grace.  And  what  communication  we 
“ had  together,  I doubt  not  but  that  they  will  make  the  true  report 
“ thereof  unto  your  grace.  I am  exceedingly  sorry  that  such  faults 
“ can  be  proved  by  the  queen,  as  I heard  of  their  relation ; and  I 
“ am  and  ever  shall  be  your  faithful  subject.”  But  what  was  this 
report,  which  they  were  to  make  to  the  king  from  him  ? The 
sequel  seems  to  show  that  it  regarded  the  course  to  be  pursued  in 
pronouncing  the  divorce. 


I 


CRANMER  PRONOUNCES  A DIVORCE. 


73 


it  by  his  authority  as  metropolitan  and  judge.  But 
to  hesitate  would  have  cost  him  his  head.  He  ac- 
ceded to  the  proposal  with  all  the  zeal  of  a proselyte ; 
and,  adopting  as  his  own  the  objections  to  its  validity 
with  which  he  had  been  furnished,  sent  copies  of  them 
to  both  the  king  and  queen,  “ for  the  salvation  of 
“ their  souls/’  and  the  due  effect  of  law ; with  a 
summons  to  each  to  appear  in  his  court,  and  to  show 
cause  why  a sentence  of  divorce  should  not  be  pro- 
nounced. Never,  perhaps,  was  there  a more  solemn 
mockery  of  the  forms  of  justice,  than  in  the  pretended 
trial  of  this  extraordinary  cause.  By  the  king  Dr 
Sampson  was  appointed  to  act  as  his  proctor ; by  the 
queen,  the  doctors  Wotton  and  Barbour  wrere  invested 
with  similar  powers ; the  objections  were  read ; the 
proctor  on  one  part  admitted  them,  those  on  the  other 
could  not  refute  them ; both  joined  in  demanding 
judgment ; and  two  days  after  the  condemnation  of 
the  queen  by  the  peers,  Cranmer,  “ having  previously 
“invoked  the  name  of  Christ,  and  having  God  alone 
“ before  his  eyes/’  pronounced  definitively  that  the 
marriage  formerly  contracted,  solemnized,  and  con- 
summated between  Henry  and  Anne  Boleyn  was,  and 
always  had  been,  null  and  void.1  The  whole  process 

1 Several  questions  rose  out  of  this  judgment,  i.  If  it  were  good 
in  law,  Anne  had  never  been  married  to  the  king.  She  could  not, 
therefore,  have  been  guilty  of  adultery,  and  consequently  ought  not 
to  be  put  to  death  for  that  crime.  2.  If  the  same  judgment  were 
good,  the  act  of  settlement  became  null,  because  it  was  based  on  the 
supposition  of  a valid  marriage  ; and  all  the  treasons  created  by  that 
act  were  at  once  done  away.  3.  If  the  act  of  settlement  were  still 
in  force,  the  judgment  itself,  inasmuch  as  it  “ slandered  and  im- 
*l  pugned  the  marriage,”  was  an  act  of  treason.  But  Anne  derived 
no  benefit  from  these  doubts.  She  was  executed,  and  the  next 
parliament  put  an  end  to  all  controversy  on  the  subject  by  enacting, 
that  offences  made  treason  by  the  act,  should  be  so  deemed  if  com- 
mitted before  the  8th  of  June;  but  that  the  king’s  loving  subjects 


3 0 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


May  17 


74 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


was  afterwards  laid  before  the  members  of  the  con- 
vocation, and  the  houses  of  parliament.  The  former 
presumed  not  to  dissent  from  the  decision  of  the 
metropolitan  ; the  latter  were  willing  that  in  such  a 
case  their  ignorance  should  be  guided  by  the  learning 
of  the  clergy.  By  both  the  divorce  was  approved  and 
confirmed.  To  Elizabeth,  the  infant  daughter  of 
Anne,  the  necessary  consequence  was,  that  she,  like 
her  sister,  the  daughter  of  Catherine,  was  reputed 
illegitimate.1 

On  the  day  on  which  Cranmer  pronounced  judg- 
ment the  companions  of  the  queen  were  led  to  exe- 
cution. Smeaton  was  hanged ; the  other  four,  on 

concerned  in  the  prosecution  of  the  queen  in  the  archbishop’s  court, 
or  before  the  lords,  should  have  a full  pardon  for  all  treasons  by 
them  in  such  prosecution  committed. — Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  656. 

1 See  the  record  in  Wilkins  (Con.  iii.  803).  Burnet,  unac- 
quainted with  this  instrument,  which,  he  asserts,  was  burnt,  informs 
us  that  the  divorce  was  pronounced  in  consequence  of  an  alleged 
precontract  of  marriage  between  Anne  and  Percy,  afterwards  earl 
of  Northumberland  ; that  the  latter  had  twice  solemnly  denied  the 
existence  of  such  contract  on  the  sacrament;  but  that  Anne, 
through  hope  of  favour,  was  induced  to  confess  it.  That  Percy 
denied  it,  is  certain  from  his  letter  of  the  13th  of  May  (Burn.  i. 
Rec.  iii.  49) ; that  Anne  confessed  it,  is  the  mere  assertion  of  the 
historian,  supported  by  no  authority.  It  is  most  singular  that  the 
real  nature  of  the  objection  on  which  the  divorce  was  founded  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  decree  itself,  nor  in  the  acts  of  the  convocation, 
nor  in  the  act  of  parliament,  though  it  was  certainly  communicated 
both  to  the  convocation  and  the  parliament.  If  the  reader  turn  to 
p.  475,  499,  he  will  find  that  the  king  had  formerly  cohabited 
with  Mary,  the  sister  of  Anne  Boleyn  ; which  cohabitation,  accord- 
ing to  the  canon  law,  opposed  the  same  impediment  to  liis  mar- 
riage with  Anne,  as  had  before  existed  to  hismarriage  with  Catherine. 
On  this  account  he  had  procured  a dispensation  from  Pope  Clement ; 
but  that  dispensation,  according  to  the  doctrine  which  prevailed  after 
his  separation  from  the  communion  of  Rome,  was  of  no  force ; and 
hence  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  real  ground  of  the  divorce 
pronounced  by  Cranmer,  was  Henry’s  previous  cohabitation  with 
Mary  Boleyn ; that  this  was  admitted  on  both  sides ; and  that  in 
consequence  the  marriage  with  Anne,  the  sister  of  Mary,  was  judged 
invalid. — See  note  (C). 


anne’s  message  to  mary.  75 

account  of  their  superior  rank,  were  beheaded.  The 
last  words  of  Smeaton,  though  susceptible  of  a different 
meaning,  were  taken  by  his  hearers  for  a confession 
of  guilt.  “ Masters,”  said  he,  “ I pray  you  all,  pray 
“ for  me,  for  I have  deserved  the  death.”  Norris  was 
obstinately  silent;  Bochford  exhorted  the  spectators 
to  live  according  to  the  gospel;  Weston  lamented  his 
past  folly  in  purposing  to  give  his  youth  to  sin,  and 
his  old  age  to  repentance  ; Brereton,  who,  says  an 
eye-witness,  was  innocent  if  any  of  them  were,  used 
these  enigmatical  words.  “ I have  deserved  to  die, 
4 4 if  it  were  a thousand  deaths  ; but  the  cause  where- 
“ fore  I die,  judge  ye  not.  If  ye  judge,  judge  the 
“ best.”1 

To  Anne  herself  two  days  more  were  allotted, 
which  she  spent  for  the  most  part  in  the  company  of 
her  confessor.  On  the  evening  before  her  death, 
falling  on  her  knees  before  the  wife  of  the  lieutenant, 
she  asked  her  for  a last  favour ; which  was  that  Lad}r 
Kyngstone  would  throw  herself  in  like  manner  at  the 
feet  of  the  lady  Mary,  and  would  in  Anne’s  name 
beseech  her  to  forgive  the  many  wrongs  which  the 


1 Constantyne’s  Memoir  in  Archaeol.  xxiii.  63 — 66.  It  may  be 
observed  that  in  none  of  these  declarations,  not  even  in  that  of 
Smeaton,  is  there  any  express  admission,  or  express  denial  of  the 
crime  for  which  these  unfortunate  men  suffered.  If  they  were  guilty, 
is  it  not  strange  that  not  one  out  of  five  would  acknowledge  it  ? If 
they  were  not,  is  it  not  still  more  strange  that  not  one  of  them 
should  proclaim  his  innocence,  if  not  for  his  own  sake,  at  least  for 
the  sake  of  that  guiltless  woman  who  was  still  alive,  but  destined 
to  suffer  for  the  same  cause  in  a few  days  ? The  best  solution,  in 
my  opinion,  is  to  suppose,  that  no  person  was  allowed  to  speak  at 
his  execution  without  a solemn  promise  to  say  nothing  in  disparage- 
ment of  the  judgment  under  which  he  suffered.  We  know  that,  if 
the  king  brought  a man  to  trial,  it  was  thought  necessary  for  the 
king’s  honour  that  he  should  be  convicted  ; probably,  when  he  suf- 
fered, it  was  thought  equally  for  the  king’s  honour  that  he  should 
not  deny  the  justice  of  his  punishment. 


76 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  pride  of  a thoughtless  unfortunate  woman  had  brought 
a.d.  1536.  upon  her.  We  learn  from  Kyngstone  himself,  that 
she  displayed  an  air  of  greater  cheerfulness  than  he 
had  ever  witnessed  in  any  person  in  similar  circum- 
stances ; that  she  had  required  him  to  be  present 
when  she  should  receive  “ the  good  lord,”  to  the  intent 
that  he  might  hear  her  declare  her  innocence ; and 
that  he  had  no  doubt  she  would  at  her  execution 
proclaim  herself  ‘fa  good  woman  for  all  but  the  king.” 
If,  however,  such  were  her  intention,  she  afterwards 
May  19.  receded  from  it.  The  next  morning  the  dukes  of 
Suffolk  and  Bichmond,  the  lord  mayor  and  aldermen, 
with  a deputation  of  citizens  from  each  company,  as- 
sembled by  order  of  the  king  on  the  green  within  the 
Tower.  About  noon  the  gate  opened,  and  Anne  was 
led  to  the  scaffold,  dressed  in  a robe  of  black  damask, 
and  attended  by  her  four  maids.  With  the  permission 
of  the  lieutenant,  she  thus  addressed  the  spectators  : 
4 4 Good  Christian  people,  I am  not  come  here  to 
“ excuse  or  justify  myself,  forasmuch  as  I know  full 
“ well  that  aught  which  I could  say  in  my  defence 
“ doth  not  appertain  to  you,  and  that  I could  derive 
“ no  hope  of  life  for  the  same.  I come  here  only  to  die, 
“ and  thus  to  yield  myself  humbly  to  the  will  of  my 
“ lord  the  king.  And  if  in  life  I did  ever  offend  the 
“ king’s  grace,  surely  with  my  death  do  I now  atone 
“ for  the  same.  I blame  not  my  judges,  nor  any 
‘c  other  manner  of  person,  nor  any  thing  save  the  cruel 
“ law  of  the  land  by  which  I die.  But  be  this,  and 
“ be  my  faults  as  they  may,  I beseech  you  all,  good 
“ friends,  to  pray  for  the  life  of  the  king,  my  sovereign 
“ lord  and  yours,  who  is  one  of  the  best  princes  on 
“ the  face  of  the  earth,  and  who  has  always  treated 
“ me  so  well  that  better  cannot  be  ; wherefore  I sub- 


ANNE  IS  BEHEADED. 


77 


“ mit  to  death  with  a good  will,  humbly  asking  pardon 
“ of  all  the  world.’’  She  then  took  her  coifs  from  her 
head,  and  covered  her  hair  with  a linen  cap,  saying  to 
her  maids,  “ I cannot  reward  you  for  your  service, 
“ but  pray  you  to  take  comfort  for  my  loss.  Howbeit, 
££  forget  me  not.  Be  faithful  to  the  king’s  grace,  and 
££  to  her  whom  with  happier  fortune  you  may  have  for 
££  your  queen  and  mistress.  Value  your  honour  before 
££  your  lives  ; and  in  your  prayers  to  the  Lord  Jesus, 
££  forget  not  to  pray  for  my  soul.”  She  now  knelt 
down ; one  of  her  attendants  tied  a bandage  over  her 
eyes,  and,  as  she  exclaimed,  “0  LordGrod,  have  mercy 
££  upon  my  soul,”  the  executioner,  with  one  blow 
of  his  sword,  severed  her  head  from  the  body.  Her 
remains,  covered  with  a sheet,  were  placed  by  her 
maids  in  an  elm  chest,  brought  from  the  armoury,  and 
immediately  afterwards  buried  within  the  chapel  of 
the  Tower.1 11 

Thus  fell  this  unfortunate  queen  within  four  months 
after  the  death  of  Catherine.  To  have  expressed  a 
doubt  of  her  guilt  during  the  reign  of  Henry,  or  of  her 


1 Compare  Constantyne’s  Memoir,  who  was  present,  with  the 
letter  of  a Portuguese  gentleman,  who  wrote  soon,  afterwards  to  a 
friend  in  Lisbon,  in  Excerpta  Hist.  264,  The  speech  in  the  text  is 
taken  from  him ; that  in  Constantyne  is  as  follows  : “ Good  people, 
“ I do  not  intend  to  reason  my  death,  but  I remit  me  to  Christ 
“ wholly,  in  whom  is  my  trust ; desiring  you  all  to  pray  for  the 
u king’s  majesty,  that  he  may  long  reign  over  you  ; for  he  is  a very 

11  noble  prince,  and  full  gently  hath  handled  me.”  In  both  the 
substance  is  the  same  ; but  probably  what  one  has  dilated  the  other 
has  condensed.  Plain,  however,  is  it  that  Anne,  like  her  fellow- 
sufferers,  chose  to  leave  the  question  of  her  guilt  or  innocence  pro- 
blematical. I may  add  that  the  Portuguese  writer  is  certainly  in 
error  when  he  supposes  Smeaton  to  have  been  beheaded ; and  that 
he  only  relates  the  reports  of  the  day,  when  he  says  that  the  council 
had  pronounced  the  queen’s  daughter  the  child  of  Lord  Kochford, 
and  that  the  king  had  owned  Mary  for  his  legitimate  heir. — Ibid. 
265. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


78 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  innocence  during  that  of  Elizabeth,  would  have  been 
a.d.  i536.  deemed  a proof  of  disaffection.  The  question  soon 
became  one  of  religious  feeling,  rather  than  of  his- 
torical disquisition.  Though  she  had  departed  no 
further  than  her  husband  from  the  ancient  doctrine, 
yet,  as  her  marriage  with  Henry  led  to  the  separation 
from  the  communion  of  Eome,  the  Catholic  writers 
were  eager  to  condemn,  the  Protestant  to  exculpate 
her  memory.  In  the  absence  of  those  documents 
which  alone  could  enable  us  to  decide  with  truth, 
I will  only  observe  that  the  king  must  have  been 
impelled  by  some  most  powerful  motive  to  exercise 
against  her  such  extraordinary,  and,  in  one  supposition, 
such  superfluous  rigour.  Had  his  object  been  (we  are 
sometimes  told  that  it  was)  to  place  Jane  Seymour  by 
his  side  on  the  throne,  the  divorce  of  Anne  without 
her  execution,  or  the  execution  without  the  divorce, 
would  have  effected  his  purpose.  But  he  seems  to 
have  pursued  her  with  insatiable  hatred.  Not  con- 
tent with  taking  her  life,  he  made  her  feel  in  every 
way  in  which  a wife  and  a mother  could  feel.  He 
stamped  on  her  character  the  infamy  of  adultery  and 
incest ; he  deprived  her  of  the  name  and  the  right  of 
wife  and  queen  ; and  he  even  bastardized  her  daughter 
though  he  acknowledged  that  daughter  to  be  his  own. 
If  then  he  were  not  assured  of  her  guilt,  he  must  have 
discovered  in  her  conduct  some  most  heinous  cause 
of  provocation,  which  he  never  disclosed.  He  had 
wept  at  the  death  of  Catherine ; but,  as  if  he  sought 
to  display  his  contempt  for  the  memory  of  Anne,  he 
dressed  himself  in  white  on  the  day  of  her  execution  ; 
May  20.  and  was  married  to  Jane  Seymour  the  next  morning. 

For  two  years  Mary,  his  daughter  by  Catherine,  had 
lived  at  Hunsdon,  a royal  manor,  in  a state  of  absolute 


MARY  RECONCILED  TO  HER  FATHER. 


79 


seclusion  from  societ}L  Now,  taking  advantage  of  a 
visit  from  Lady  Kyngstone,  who  had  probably  been 
allowed  to  deliver  the  message  from  Anne  Boleyn,  she 
solicited  the  good  offices  of  Cromwell,  and  received 
from  him  a favourable  answer.1  It  was  not  that  the 
heartless  politician  felt  any  pity  for  the  daughter  of 
Catherine ; but  he  had  persuaded  himself  that  both 
Mary  and  Elizabeth,  though  bastards  by  law,  might, 
if  they  were  treated  as  princesses  in  fact,  be  married, 
to  the  king’s  profit,  into  the  families  of  some  of  the 
continental  sovereigns.2  Through  his  intercession  she 
was  permitted  to  write  to  her  father ; her  letters,  the 
most  humble  and  submissive  that  she  could  devise, 
were  never  noticed  ; she  again  consulted  Mr.  Secretary, 
followed  his  advice,  and  adopted  his  suggestions  and 
corrections;3  but  Henry  was  resolved  to  probe  her 
sincerity,  and  instead  of  an  answer  sent  to  her  a de- 
putation with  certain  articles  in  writing  to  which  he 
required  her  signature.  From  these  her  conscience 
recoiled;  but  Cromwell  subdued  her  scruples  by  a 
most  unfeeling  and  imperious  letter.  He  called  her 
■“  an  obstinate  and  obdurate  woman,  deserving  the 

1 li  I perceived  that  nobody  durst  speak  for  me  as  long  as  that 
11  woman  lived,  who  is  now  gone,  whom  I pray  our  Lord  of  his  great 
u mercy  to  forgive.  Wherefore  now  she  is  gone,  I desire  you  for 

“ the  love  of  God  to  be  a suitor  for  me  to  the  king’s  grace Ac- 

u cept  mine  evil  writing ; for  I have  not  done  so  much  this  two  year 
“ or  more ; nor  could  not  have  found  the  means  to  do  it  at  this  time 
“ but  by  my  Lady  Kyngston’s  being  here.” — Sylloge  Epist.  at  the 
end  of  Titus  Livius  by  Hearne,  p.  140. 

s See  a memorandum  by  Cromwell  in  Ellis,  Sec.  Ser.  ii.  123. 

3 She  had  said,  “I  have  decreed  simply  from  henceforth  and  wholly, 
u next  to  Almighty  God , to  put  my  state,  continuance,  and  living  in 
u your  gracious  mercy.”  Cromwell  objected  to  the  words  in  italics ; 
and  she  replied  that  she  had  always  been  accustomed  to  except  God 
in  speaking  and  writing,  but  would  follow  his  advice,  and  copy  the 
letter  which  he  had  sent  her. — Sylloge  Epist.  at  the  end  of  Titus 
Livius,  by  Hearne,  p.  124,  126. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


May  26. 


80 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


June  26. 


June  8. 


“reward  of  malice  in  the  extremity  of  mischief if 
she  did  not  submit,  he  would  take  his  leave  of  her  for 
ever,  “ reputing  her  the  most  ungrateful,  unnatural, 
“ and  obstinate  person  living,  both  to  Glod  and  her 
“father  and  ended  with  saying,  that  by  her  disobe- 
dience she  had  rendered  herself  “ unfit  to  live  in  a 
“ Christian  congregation,  of  which  he  was  so  con- 
“ vinced,  that  he  refused  the  mercy  of  Christ  if  it  were 
“not  true/'1  Intimidated  and  confounded,  she  at 
last  consented  to  acknowledge  that  it  was  her  duty  to 
observe  all  the  king’s  laws  ; that  Henry  was  the  head 
of  the  church ; and  that  the  marriage  between  her 
father  and  mother  had  been  incestuous  and  unlaw- 
ful.2 It  was  then  required  that  she  should  reveal  the 
names  of  the  persons  who  had  advised  her  former  ob- 
stinacy and  her  present  submission ; but  the  princess 
indignantly  replied,  that  she  was  ready  to  suffer  death 
rather  than  expose  any  confidential  friend  to  the  royal 
displeasure.  Henry  relented ; he  permitted  her  to 
write  to  him  ; and  granted  her  an  establishment  more 
suitable  to  her  rank.3  But  though  she  was  received 
into  favour,  she  was  not  restored  in  blood.  The  king 
had  called  a parliament  to  repeal  the  last,  and  to  pass 
a new  act  of  succession,  entailing  his  crown  on  his 
issue  by  his  queen  Jane  Seymour.  But  he  did  not 
rest  here  : in  violation  of  every  constitutional  principle 

1 Sylloge  Epist.  at  the  end  of  Titus  Livius,  by  Hearne,  p.  137. 

2 Ibid.  p.  142.  State  Papers,  i.  455 — 459. 

3 From  one  of  her  letters  she  appears  to  have  been  entrusted  with 
the  care  of  Elizabeth.  “ My  sister  Elizabeth  is  in  good  health, 
“ thanks  be  to  our  Lord,  and  such  a child  toward,  as  I doubt  not, 
“ but  your  highness  will  have  cause  to  rejoice  of  in  time  coming,  as 
“ knoweth  Almighty  God”  (p.  13 1).  The  Privy  purse  expenses  of 
Mary  at  this  period,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Sir  Frederick 
Madden,  exhibit  proofs  of  a cheerful  and  charitable  disposition,  very 
different  from  the  character  given  of  her  by  several  writers. 


DEATH  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  RICHMOND. 


81 


lie  obtained  a power,  in  failure  of  children  by  his  pre-  chap. 
sent  or  any  future  wife,  to  limit  the  crown  in  posses-  a.d.  1536. 
sion  and  remainder  by  letters  patent  under  the  great 
seal,  or  by  his  last  will,  signed  with  his  own  hand,  to  any 
such  person  or  persons  whom  he  might  think  proper.1 
It  was  believed  that  he  had  chiefly  in  view  his  natural 
son,  the  duke  of  Bichmond,  then  in  his  eighteenth 
year,  and  the  idol  of  his  affection.  But  before  the  act 
could  receive  the  royal  assent  the  duke  died;  Henry  July 24. 
remained  without  a male  child,  legitimate  or  illegiti- 
mate, to  succeed  him ; and  a project  was  seriously 
entertained,  but  afterwards  abandoned,  of  marrying 
the  lady  Mary  to  the  duke  of  Orleans,  the  second  son 
of  the  French  monarch,  and  of  declaring  them  pre- 
sumptive heirs  to  the  crown.2 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  659.  Strype,  i.  Rec.  182.  A multitude  of 
new  treasons  was  created  by  this  statute.  It  was  made  treason  to 
do  anything  by  words,  writing,  imprinting,  or  any  exterior  act  or 
deed,  to  the  peril  of  the  person  of  the  king  or  his  heirs ; or  for  the 
repeal  of  this  act,  or  of  the  dispositions  made  by  the  king  in  virtue 
thereof ; or  to  the  slander  and  prejudice  of  his  marriage  with 
Queen  Jane  or  any  other  his  lawful  wife ; or  by  words,  writing,  im- 
printing, or  any  other  exterior  act,  to  take  and  believe  either  of  the 
king’s  former  marriages  valid,  or  under  any  pretence  to  name  and 
call  his  issue  by  either  of  those  marriages  lawful  issue  ; or  to  refuse 
to  answer  upon  oath  any  interrogatories  relative  to  any  clause, 
sentence,  'or  word  in  this  act,  or  to  refuse  to  promise  upon  oath  to 
keep  and  observe  the  same  act.  In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  this 
enactment,  the  lord  Thomas  Howard,  brother  to  the  duke  of  Norfolk, 
was  attainted  of  high  treason,  by  a bill  introduced,  and  read  three 
times  in  each  house  on  the  last  day  of  the  session.  His  offence  was 
that  he  had  privately  contracted  marriage  with  the  lady  Margaret 
Douglas  ; a sufficient  proof,  in  the  opinion  of  Henry,  that  he  aspired 
to  the  throne  after  the  king’s  death.  He  was  not  executed,  but 
suffered  to  die  in  the  Tower.  The  lady  was  also  committed.  Her 
mother,  the  queen  dowager  of  Scotland,  begged  of  Henry  to  remem- 
ber that  she  was  his  “ nepotas,  aud  cyster  naturall  unto  the  king, 
u her  derrest  son.” — Chron.  Catal.  190.  Margaret  was  discharged 
on  the  death  of  the  lord  Thomas,  and  we  shall  meet  with  her  again 
as  countess  of  Lennox,  and  mother  of  Lord  Darnley. 

2 Philip,  duke  of  Bavaria,  also  made  to  her  an  offer  of  marriage 

YOL.  Y.  G 


82 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


During  the  summer  the  king  sought  to  dissipate  his 
grief  for  the  death  of  his  son  in  the  company  of  his 
young  queen  : in  autumn  he  was  suddenly  alarmed  by 
an  insurrection  in  the  northern  counties,  where  the 
people  retained  a strong  attachment  to  the  ancient 
doctrines ; and  the  clergy,  further  removed  from  the 
influence  of  the  court,  were  less  disposed  to  abjure 
their  opinions  at  the  nod  of  the  sovereign.  Each 
succeeding  innovation  had  irritated  their  discontent ; 
but  when  they  saw  the  ruin  of  the  establishments 
which  they  had  revered  from  their  childhood ; the 
monks  driven  from  their  homes,  and  in  many  instances 
compelled  to  beg  their  bread  ; and  the  poor,  who  had 
formerly  been  fed  at  the  doors  of  the  convents,  now 
abandoned  without  relief ; 1 they  readily  listened  to  the 
declamations  of  demagogues,  unfurled  the  standard  of 
revolt,  and  with  arms  in  their  hands,  and  under  the 
guidance  of  Makerel,  abbot  of  Barlings,  who  had  as- 
sumed the  name  of  Captain  Cobbler,  demanded  the 
redress  of  their  grievances.  Nor  was  the  insurrection- 
long  confined  to  the  common  people.  The  nobility 
and  gentry,  the  former  patrons  of  the  dissolved  houses, 
complained  that  they  were  deprived  of  the  corrodies 
reserved  to  them  by  the  charters  of  foundation;  and 
contended  that,  according  to  law,  whenever  these 
religious  corporations  ceased  to  exist,  their  lands 
ought  not  to  fall  to  the  crown,  but  should  revert  to 
the  representatives  of  the  original  donors.  The  arcli- 

(Privy  Purse,  &c.  pref.  xciv.)  ; but  Mary  replied  that  she  had  no 
•wish  to  enter  that  religion , i.e.  a married  life. 

1 “ Whereby  the  service  of  God  is  not  only  minished,  but  also  the 
“ porealty  of  your  realm  be  unrelieved,  and  many  persons  be  put 
“ from  their  livings,  and  left  at  large,  which  we  think  is  a great 
“ hinderance  to  the  commonwealth.” — Lincolnshire  remonstrance, 
apud  Speed,  1033. 


INSURRECTION  IN  THE  NORTH. 


83 


bishop  of  York,  the  lords  Nevil,  Darcy,  Lumley,  and 
Latimer,  and  most  of  the  knights  and  gentlemen  in 
the  north,  joined  the  insurgents,  either  through  com- 
pulsion, as  they  afterwards  pretended,  or  through 
inclination,  as  was  generally  believed.  The  first  who 
appeared  in  arms  were  the  men  of  Lincolnshire  ; and 
so  formidable  was  their  force,  that  the  duke  of  Suffolk 
the  royal  commander,  deemed  it  more  prudent  to 
negotiate  than  to  fight.  They  complained  chiefly  of  the 
suppression  of  the  monasteries,  of  the  Statute  of  Uses,1 
of  the  introduction  into  the  council  of  such  men  as 
Cromwell  and  Eich,  and  of  the  preferment  of  the  arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  and  Dublin,  and  of  the  bishops 
of  Eochester,  Salisbury,  and  St.  David’s,  whose  chief 
aim  was  to  subvert  the  church  of  Christ.  Several 
messages  passed  between  the  king  and  the  insurgents ; 
at  length  a menacing  proclamation  created  dissension 
in  their  counsels ; and,  as  soon  as  the  more  obstinate 
had  departed  to  join  their  brethren  in  Yorkshire,  the 
rest  accepted  a full  pardon  on  the  acknowledgment  of 
their  offence,  the  surrender  of  their  arms,  and  the 
promise  to  maintain  all  the  acts  of  parliament  passed 
during  the  king’s  reign.2 

In  the  five  other  counties  the  insurrection  had 
assumed  a more  formidable  appearance.  From  the 
borders  of  Scotland  to  the  Lune  and  the  Humber,  the 
inhabitants  had  generally  bound  themselves  by  oath  to 
stand  by  each  other,  “ for  the  love  which  they  bore  to 

1 By  the  Statute  of  Uses  was  meant  the  statute  for  transferring 
uses  into  possession,  by  which  persons  who  before  had  the  use  only 
of  their  lands,  and  thus  lay  in  a great  measure  at  the  mercy  of  the 
feoffees,  became  seised  of  the  land  in  the  same  estate  of  which  they 
before  had  the  use. — St.  27  Hen.  VIII.  10. 

2 Speed,  1033.  Herbert,  474.  State  Papers,  i.  462 — 466,  468 
—470. 

Gr  2 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


Oct.  2. 


Oct.  12. 


Oct.  13. 


84 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

..D.  1536. 


Oct.  20, 


“ Almighty  God,  his  faith,  the  holy  church,  and  the 
“ maintenance  thereof ; to  the  preservation  of  the 
“ king’s  person  and  his  issue ; to  the  purifying  of  the 
“ nobility ; and  to  expulse  all  villein  blood,  and  evil 
“ counsellors  from  his  grace  and  privy  council ; not  for 
“any  private  profit,  nor  to  do  displeasure  to  any 
“ private  person,  nor  to  slay  or  murder  through  envy, 
“ but  for  the  restitution  of  the  church,  and  the  sup- 
pression of  heretics  and  their  opinions.”  Their 
enterprise  was  quaintly  termed  the  “ pilgrimage  of 
‘‘ grace;”  on  their  banners  were  painted  the  image 
of  Christ  crucified,  and  the  chalice  and  host,  the 
emblems  of  their  belief ; and,  wherever  the  pilgrims 
appeared,  the  ejected  monks  were  replaced  in  the 
monasteries,  and  the  inhabitants  were  compelled  to 
take  the  oath,  and  to  join  the  army.1 11  The  strong 
castles  of  Skipton  and  Scarborough  were  preserved  by 
the  courage  and  loyalty  of  the  garrisons ; but  Hull, 
York,  and  Pontefract  admitted  the  insurgents;  and 
thirty  thousand  men,  under  the  nominal  command 
(the  real  leaders  seem  not  to  have  been  known)  of  a 
gentleman  named  Robert  Aske,  hastened  to  obtain 
possession  of  Doncaster.  The  earl  of  Shrews  bury ^ 
though  without  any  commission,  ventured  to  arm  his 
tenantry  and  throw  himself  into  the  town ; he  was 
soon  joined  by  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  the  king’s  lieu- 
tenant, with  five  thousand  men  ; a battery  of  cannon 
protected  the  bridge  over  the  river,  and  the  ford  was 

1 As  an  instance,  I will  add  the  summons  sent  to  the  commons  of 
Hawkside  : — “ We  commandyou  and  every  of  you  to  be  at  the  Stoke- 
“ green  beside  Hawkside  kirk  on  Saturday  next  by  eleven  of  the 
“ clock,  in  your  best  array,  as  you  will  answer  before  the  high  Judge 
“ at  the  great  day  of  doom,  and  in  the  pain  of  pulling  down  your 

11  houses,  and  the  losing  of  your  goods,  and  your  bodies  to  be  at  the 
u captain’s  will.” — Speed,  1033. 


PILGRIM  OF  GRACE. 


85 


rendered  impassable  by  an  accidental  swell  of  the 
waters.  In  these  circumstances  the  insurgents  con- 
sented to  an  armistice,  and  appointed  delegates  to 
lay  their  demands  before  Henry,  who  had  already 
summoned  his  nobility  to  meet  him  in  arms  at  North- 
ampton, but  was  persuaded  by  the  duke  to  revoke 
the  order,  and  trust  to  the  influence  of  terror  and 
•dissension. 

To  the  deputies  the  king  gave  a written  answer, 
composed  by  himself ; 1 to  Norfolk  full  authority  to 
treat  with  the  insurgents,  and  to  grant  a pardon  to  all 
but  ten  persons,  six  named,  and  four  unnamed.  But 
this  exception  caused  each  of  the  leaders  to  fear  for 
his  own  life:  the  terms  were  refused;  another  negotia- 
tion was  opened ; and  a numerous  deputation,  having 
previously  consulted  a convocation  of  the  clergy  sitting 
at  Pontefract,2  proposed  their  demands  to  the  royal 
commissioners.  They  required  that  heretical  books 
should  be  suppressed,  and  that  heretical  bishops,  and 
temporal  men  of  their  sect,  should  either  be  punished 
according  to  law,  or  try  their  quarrel  with  the  pilgrims 
by  battle  ; that  the  statutes  of  uses,  and  treason  of 
wards,  with  those  which  abolished  the  papal  authority, 
bastardized  the  princess  Mary,  suppressed  the  monas- 
teries, and  gave  to  the  king  the  tenths  and  first-fruits 
of  benefices,  should  be  repealed ; that  Cromwell  the 

1 It  is  characteristic  of  the  author.  He  marvels  that  such 
ignorant  churls  should  talk  of  theological  subjects  to  him  who 
“ something  had  been  noted  to  be  learned or  should  complain  of 
his  laws,  as  if,  after  the  experience  of  twenty-eight  years,  he  did  not 
know  how  to  govern  a kingdom  ; or  should  oppose  the  suppression 
of  monasteries,  as  if  it  were  not  better  to  relieve  the  head  of  the 
church  in  his  necessity,  than  to  support  the  sloth  and  wickedness  of 
monks. — It  is  printed  in  Speed,  1038,  and  Herbert,  480. 

2 Their  answers  to  the  questions  proposed  to  them  may  be  seen  in 
Strype,  i.  App.  179;  Wilk.  iii.  812. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 
Nov.  7. 


Nov.  13. 


Dec.  6. 


86 


HENRY  VIII. 


chai\  vicar-general,  Audeley  the  chancellor,  and  Rich  the 
a.d.  1536.  attorney-general,  should  be  punished  as  subverters  of 
the  law,  and  maintainers  of  heresy ; that  Lee  and 
Layton,  the  visitors  of  the  northern  monasteries, 
should  be  prosecuted  for  extortion,  peculation,  and 
other  abominable  acts ; that  no  man,  residing  north  of 
the  Trent,  should  be  compelled  by  subpoena  to  appear 
at  any  court  but  at  York,  unless  in  matters  of  al- 
legiance; and  that  a parliament  should  be  shortly  held 
in  some  convenient  place,  as  at  Nottingham  or  York. 
These  demands  were  instantly  rejected  by  the  duke,  a& 
was  an  offer  of  pardon,  clogged  with  exceptions,  by 
the  insurgents.  The  latter  immediately  recalled  such 
of  their  partisans  as  had  left  their  camp  ; their  num- 
bers multiplied  daily  ; and  Norfolk,  who  dreaded  the 
result  of  an  attack,  found  it  necessary  to  negotiate 
both  with  his  sovereign  and  his  opponents.  At  length 
he  subdued  the  obstinacy  of  each ; and  Henry  offered, 
the  insurgents  accepted,  an  unlimited  pardon,  with  an 
understanding  that  their  grievances  should  be  shortly 
IS37  and  patiently  discussed  in  the  parliament  to  be  as- 

Feb-  sembled  at  York.1  But  the  king,  freed  from  his 

apprehensions,  neglected  to  redeem  his  promise ; and 
within  two  months  the  pilgrims  were  again  under 
arms.  Now,  however,  the  duke,  who  lay  with  a more 
numerous  force  in  the  heart  of  the  country,  was  able 
to  intercept  their  communications,  and  to  defeat  all 
their  measures.  They  failed  in  two  successive  at- 
tempts to  surprise  Hull  and  Carlisle ; the  lord  Darcy, 
Robert  Aske,  and  most  of  the  leaders  were  taken,  sent 

1 See  Hardwicke,  State  Papers,  p.  28,  29,  &c.  Henry  “ thought 
“ his  honour  would  be  much  touched  if  he  granted  them  a 
“ free  pardon.”  On  this  account  he  was  very  peevish  with  the 
duke. 


THE  INSURRECTION  SUPPRESSED. 


87 


to  London,  and  executed,1  the  others  were  hanged  by  chap. 
scores  at  York,  Hull,  and  Carlisle ; and  at  length,  a.d.  1537. 
when  resistance  had  ceased,  and  the  royal  resentment 
had  been  satisfied,  tranquillity  was  restored  by  the 
proclamation  of  a general  pardon.2 

From  the  insurgents  Henry  directed  his  attention 
to  the  proceedings  of  his  kinsman,  Reginald  Pole. 

That  young  nobleman,  after  his  refusal  of  the  arch- 
bishopric of  York,  had  obtained  permission  to  prose- 
cute his  studies  on  the  continent ; and,  aware  of  the 
storm  which  was  gathering  in  England,  had  silently 
withdrawn  to  the  north  of  Italy,  where  he  devoted  him- 
self exclusively  to  literary  pursuits.  But  the  jealousy 
of  the  king,  or  the  malice  of  his  enemies,  followed 
him  into  this  peaceful  asylum ; and  he  received  a royal 
order  to  state  in  writing  his  opinion  on  the  two  impor- 
tant questions  of  the  supremacy  and  the  divorce.  For 
months  Pole  declined  the  dangerous  task.  But  the 
execution  of  Anne  Boleyn,  and  a repetition  of  the 
order  from  Henry,  induced  him  to  obey;  and  in  a ^ g 
long  and  laboured  treatise,  which  was  conveyed  in  May  23. 
secrecy  by  a trusty  messenger  to  the  king,  he  boldly 
condemned  the  divorce  from  Catherine  as  unlawful, 
and  the  assumption  of  the  supremacy  as  a departure 
from  the  unity  of  the  church.  Of  this  Henry  could 
not  reasonably  complain.  Pole  had  done  his  duty  : 
he  had  obeyed  with  sincerity  the  royal  command ; 

1 Mr.  Tytler,  in  his  history  of  Henry  (p.  382),  refers  to  a curious 
paper  in  the  State  Papers  (i.  588),  entitled  “ The  saying  of  Robert 
“ Aske  to  me  Richard  Coren,  out  of  confession  afore  his  death,”  as 
“ illustrative  of  the  revealing  of  confessions  in  this  reign.”  The 
mistake  might  be  easily  made  by  a writer  unacquainted  with  the 
peculiar  language  of  Catholics.  By  “ out  of  confession”  was  meant 
“ not  in  confession;”  and  Coren  employed  the  phrase  to  show  that 
he  was  not  betraying  the  sacramental  confession  of  the  convict. 

2 Herbert,  489. 


88 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


July  19. 


but  in  addition  lie  proceeded,  in  that  style  of  rheto- 
rical declamation  which  was  habitual  to  him,  to  arraign 
the  misconduct  of  the  monarch  in  the  marriage  of  a 
second  wife  pending  the  life  of  the  first,  and  in  the 
judicial  murder  of  Fisher,  More,  and  the  other  sufferers, 
for  their  conscientious  refusal  to  swear  to  his  supre- 
macy.1 Irritable  as  the  king  was,  he  dissembled;  and, 
in  language  singularly  mild  and  gracious,  ordered  his 
kinsman  to  return,  that  they  might  discuss  these 
questions  in  private  to  their  mutual  satisfaction. 
Pole  instantly  saw  the  danger.  Were  he  to  set  foot 
in  England,  as  long  as  the  new  statutes  continued  in 
force,  he  must  either  abjure  his  opinion,  or  forfeit  his 
life.  He  replied,  therefore,  in  humble  and  supplica- 
tory terms,  expressive  of  a hope  that  the  king  would 
not  be  offended,  if  he  accepted  an  invitation  from  the 
pontiff  to  visit  him  in  Pome.  Henry  disdained  to 
return  an  answer;  but  he  employed  Pole’s  mother 
and  brothers,  and  Cromwell  and  his  friends  in  Eng- 
land, to  deter  him  from  the  journey ; and  afterwards 
the  two  houses  of  parliament  joined  in  a letter  to 
dissuade  him  from  the  acceptance  of  office  in  Rome.2 


1 This  epistle  was  kept  secret  during  the  life  of  Henry ; after  his 
death  it  was  published  from  a pirated  copy  by  a bookseller  in  Ger- 
many, which  induced  Pole  to  give  a correct  edition  of  it  himself, 
under  the  title  of  “ Pro  Ecclesiastics  Unitatis  Defensione  Libri  IV.” 
The  asperity  of  his  language  to  the  king  was  reprehended  by  his 
friends  in  Italy,  and  his  English  correspondents  : his  apology  was, 
that  he  deemed  it  a service  to  Henry  to  lay  before  him  a represen- 
tation of  his  conduct  in  all  its  deformity.  Some  on  this  account 
have  called  in  question  the  accuracy  of  his  statements  ; but  in  his 
answer  to  the  English  parliament,  he  boldly  defies  any  man  to  point 
out  a single  instance  of  falsehood  or  misrepresentation  in  it. — 
Apologia  ad  Angliae  Pari.  i.  179. 

2 Neve  (Animad.  on  Philips,  249)  ridicules  the  idea  of  such  a 
letter ; but  Pole  in  his  answer  directed  to  the  parliament  says  ex- 
pressly, Literas  omnium  vestrum  nominibus  subscriptas  (Pol.  Ep.  i. 
179).  As  no  parliament  was  then  sitting,  I conceive  that,  like  the 


FIRST  LEGATION  OF  POLE. 


89 


The  advice  from  the  first  shook,  but  did  not  subdue, 
the  resolution  of  Reginald ; that  from  the  latter 
reached  him  too  late.  Aware,  indeed,  that  he  should 
make  the  king  his  implacable  enemy,  and  expose  his 
family  to  the  resentment  of  an  unprincipled  sovereign, 
he  had  at  first  refused  every  offer  ; but  he  yielded 
after  a long  resistance  to  the  persuasion  of  his  friend 
Contarini,  and  the  command  of  the  pontiff;  accepted 
about  Christmas  the  dignity  of  cardinal;  and,  before 
two  months  had  elapsed,  was  unexpectedly  named  to  a 
very  delicate  but  dangerous  mission. 

When  Paul  first  heard  of  the  insurrection  in  the 
north  of  England,  he  thought  that  the  time  was  come 
in  which  he  might  give  publicity  to  the  bull  of  excom- 
munication and  deposition,  which  he  had  subscribed 
about  two  years  before ; but  from  this  measure,  which 
at  that  moment  might  have  added  considerably  to  the 
difficulties  of  Henry,  he  was  withheld  by  the  argu- 
ments and  entreaties  of  the  young  Englishman.  Still 
a notion  prevailed  in  the  Roman  court,  that  the  rising, 
even  after  it  had  been  quelled,  might  have  left  a deep 
impression  on  the  mind  of  the  king,  and  that  during 
the  parliament,  which  he  had  promised  to  convene  at 
York,  means  might  be  successfully  employed  to  re- 
concile him  with  the  Apostolic  See.  The  imperial 
cabinet  strongly  recommended  that  the  charge  of 
opening  and  conducting  this  negotiation  should  be 
intrusted  to  Pole  ; the  French  ambassador  concurred;1 
and  the  English  cardinal  was  appointed  legate  beyond 
the  Alps.  His  instructions  ordered  him  first  to 

letter  formerly  sent  to  Clement  VII.,  it  was  subscribed  by  the  lords, 
and  by  a few  commoners  in  the  name  of  the  lower  house.  Pole’s 
answer  was  addressed  to  parliament,  because  he  understood  that  it 
was  to  assemble  at  York,  as  had  been  promised,  on  the  30th  of 
March.  1 Pol.  Ep.  ii.  p.  34,  35,  42. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1536. 


Oct.  10. 


90 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  exhort  Charles  and  Francis  to  sheath  their  swords 
a.d.  1537.  against  each  other,  and  employ  them  only  against  the 
“ Turks,  then  to  announce  the  pope’s  intention  of  con- 
voking a general  council,  and  lastly  to  proceed  to  the 
Netherlands,  where  he  should  fix  his  residence,  unless 
circumstances  should  induce  him  to  visit  his  own 
country.  Of  this  appointment,  and  of  the  tenor  of 
his  instructions,  Pole  also  informed  the  king.  But 
Cromwell,  his  personal  enemy,  possessed  the  ear  of 
the  monarch ; and  was  soon  enabled  to  fulfil  the  pre- 
diction which  he  had  uttered  to  Latimer,  that  he 
would  make  the  cardinal  through  vexation  “ eat  his 
“ own  heart.” 1 As  soon  as  Pole  had  entered  France, 
the  English  ambassador,  in  virtue  of  an  article  in  the 
alliance  between  the  two  crowns,  required  that  he 
should  be  delivered  up,  and  sent  a prisoner  to  Eng- 
land ; and  the  king,  though  he  indignantly  rejected 
April  22.  the  demand,  requested  Pole,  by  a private  messenger, 
not  to  ask  for  an  audience,  but  to  prosecute  his  jour- 
ney with  the  utmost  expedition.  He  soon  reached 
Cambray  ; but  Henry’s  agent  had  already  terrified  • 
the  court  of  Brussels,  and  the  queen-regent  refused 
him  permission  to  enter  the  imperial  territory.  At 
the  same  time  the  king  proclaimed  him  a traitor,  fixed 
a price  of  fifty  thousand  crowns  on  his  head,  and 
offered  to  the  emperor  in  exchange  for  the  person  of 
the  cardinal  an  auxiliary  force  of  four  thousand  men 
June  7.  during  his  campaign  against  France.2  Alarmed  by 

1 “ I herde  you  say  wons  that  you  wold  make  hym  to  ete  hys 
“ owne  hartt,  which  you  have  now,  I trow,  brought  to  passe,  for  he 
“ must  nedes  now  ette  hys  owne  hartt,  and  becum  as  hartlesse  as  he 
“ is  graeelesse.” — Bishop  Latimer  to  Cromwell,  Wright,  Suppres. 
of  Monast.  p.  150. 

2 Dudith.  Vit.  Pol.  No.  x.  xi.  Becatelli,  inter  Ep.  Poli,  v.  366. 
Ep.  Pol.,  ii.  p.  43,  48,  55. 


DISSOLUTION  OF  MONASTERIES. 


91 


the  danger  to  which  he  was  exposed  atCambray,  Pole 
repaired,  under  the  protection  of  an  escort,  to  Liege, 
and  in  August  was  recalled  to  Pome.  It  has  been 
said  that,  in  accepting  this  mission,  he  sought  to  in- 
duce the  emperor  and  the  king  of  France  to  make 
war  upon  Henry,  and  that  he  even  indulged  a hope 
of  being  able  to  obtain  the  crown  for  himself,  as  a 
descendant  of  the  house  of  York.  These  charges  are 
satisfactorily  refuted  by  his  official  and  confidential 
correspondence  f but  at  the  same  time  it  is  plain  that 
one  object  of  his  mission  was  to  confirm  by  his  resi- 
dence in  Flanders  the  attachment  of  the  northern 
counties  to  the  ancient  faith,  to  supply,  if  it  were 
necessary,  the  leaders  of  the  malcontents  with  money, 
and  to  obtain  for  them  the  favour  and  protection  of 
the  neighbouring  powers.2  Hence  it  will  not  excite 
surprise  if  Henry,  who  had  formerly  been  the  bene- 
factor of  Pole,  looked  on  him  from  this  moment  as 
an  enemy,  and  pursued  him  ever  afterwards  with  the 
most  implacable  hatred. 

r The  northern  insurrection,  instead  of  securing  the 
stability,  accelerated  the  ruin  of  the  remaining  monas- 
teries. The  more  opulent  of  these  establishments  had 
been  spared,  as  was  pretended,  on  account  of  their 
superior  regularity ; and  of  the  many  convents  of 
friars  no  notice  at  all  had  been  taken,  probably 
because,  as  they  did  not  possess  landed  property,  little 
plunder  was  to  be  derived  from  their  suppression.  A 

1 See  his  letter  to  the  cardinal  of  Carpi  (ii.  33),  to  the  pope 
(ii.  46),  to  Edward  VI.  (tom.  iv.  337),  to  Cromwell  or  Tunstallfrom 
Cambray  (Burnet,  iii.  125;  Strype,  i.  App.  218);  and  another 
from  Throckmorton,  a gentleman  in  his  suite,  but  at  the  same  time 
in  the  pay  of  Cromwell  (Cleop.  E.  vi.  382).  The  reports  of  Throck- 
morton were  so  favourable  to  the  cardinal,  that  his  sincerity  was 
suspected,  and  he  was  attainted  the  next  year. 

* Pol.  Ep.  ii.  Monim.  prcelim.  cclxvii. — cclxxix.,  and  Ep.  p.  52. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1537. 


August  22. 


92 


HENHY  VIII. 


chap,  charge,  however,  was  now  made,  that  the  monks  in 
a.d.  1537.  the  northern  counties  had  encouraged  their  tenants  to 
join  in  the  pilgrimage  of  grace ; and  a commission, 
under  the  presidency  of  the  earl  of  Sussex,  was  ap- 
pointed to  investigate  their  conduct.  As  a fair  speci- 
men of  the  proceedings,  I will  describe  the  surrender 
of  the  great  monastery  of  Furness.  All  the  members 
of  the  community,  with  the  tenants  and  servants,  were 
successively  examined  in  private ; and  the  result  of  a 
protracted  inquiry  was  that,  though  two  monks  were 
committed  to  Lancaster  Castle,  nothing  could  be  dis- 
covered to  criminate  either  the  abbot  or  the  brother- 
hood. The  commissioners  proceeded  to  Whalley; 
and  a new  summons  compelled  the  abbot  of  Furness 
to  reappear  before  them.  A second  investigation 
was  instituted  and  the  result  was  the  same.  In  these 
circumstances,  says  the  earl  in  a letter  to  Henry, 
which  is  still  extant,  “ devising  with  myselef,  yf  one 
“ way  would  not  serve,  how  and  by  what  means  the 
“ said  monks  might  be  ryd  from  the  said  abbey,  and 
“ consequently  how  the  same  might  be  at  your  graceous 
“ pleasur,  I determined  to  assay  him  as  of  myself, 
“ whether  he  would  be  contented  to  surrender  gift* 
“ and  graunt  unto  (you)  your  heirs  and  assigans  the 
“ sa}rd  monastery  : which  thing  so  opened  to  the  abbot 
“ farely,  we  found  him  of  a very  facile  and  ready 
April  5.  “ mynde  to  follow  my  advice  in  that  behalf.”  A deed 

was  accordingly  drawn  for  him  to  sign,  in  which, 
having  acknowledged  “ the  misorder  and  evil  rule  both 
“ unto  God  and  the  king  of  the  brethren  of  the  said 
“ abbey/*  he,  in  discharge  of  his  conscience^  gave  and 
surrendered  to  Henry  all  the  title  and  interest  which 
he  possessed  in  the  monastery  of  Furness,  its  lands 
and  its  revenues.  Officers  were  immediately  de- 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS. 


93 


spatched  to  take  possession  in  the  name  of  the  king  ; 
the  commissioners  followed  with  the  abbot  in  their 
company  ; and  in  a few  days  the  whole  community 
ratified  the  deed  of  its  superior.  The  history  of  Fur- 
ness is  the  history  of  Wh alley,  and  of  the  other  great 
abbeys  in  the  north.  They  were  visited  under  pre- 
text of  the  late  Rebellion  ; and  by  one  expedient  or 
other  were  successively  wrested  from  the  possessors, 
and  transferred  to  the  crown.1 

The  success  of  the  earl  of  Sussex  and  his  colleagues 
stimulated  the  industry  of  the  commissioners  in  the 
southern  districts.  For  four  years  they  proceeded 
from  house  to  house,  soliciting,  requiring,  compelling 
the  inmates  to  submit  to  the  royal  pleasure  ; and  each 
week,  frequently  each  day  of  the  week,  was  marked 
by  the  surrender  of  one  or  several  of  these  establish- 
ments. To  accomplish  their  purpose,  they  first  tried 
the  milder  expedient  of  persuasion.  Large  and  tempt- 
ing offers  were  held  out  to  the  abbot  and  the  leading 
members  of  the  brotherhood  ; and  the  lot  of  those 
who  had  already  complied,  the  scanty  pittances  as- 
signed to  the  refractory,  and  the  ample  pensions 
granted  to  the  more  obsequious,  operated  on  their 
minds  as  a warning  and  an  inducement.2  But  where 

1 See  the  original  papers  in  the  British  Museum  (Cleop.  E.  iv. 
hi,  224,  246),  copied  and  published  by  West  in  his  History  of 
Furness,  App;  x.  (4,  5,  6,  7).  . 

2 The  pensions  to  the  superiors  appear  to  have  varied  from  2 661. 
to  61.  per  annum.  The  priors  of  cells  received  generally  13Z.  A 
few,  whose  services  had  merited  the  distinction,  obtained  20 1.  To 
the  other  monks  were  allotted  pensions  of  six,  four,  or  two  pounds, 
with  a small  sum  to  each  at  his  departure,  to  provide  for  his  im- 
mediate wants.  The  pensions  to  nuns  averaged  about  4 l.  It 
should,  however,  be  observed  that  these  sums  were  not  in  reality 
so  small  as  they  appear,  as  money  was  probably  at  that  period  of 
six  or  seven  times  greater  value  than  it  is  now.  It  was  provided 
that  each  pension  should  cease,  as  soon  as  the  pensioner  obtained 
church  preferment  of  equal  value. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1537. 
April  11. 


94 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.P.  1538. 


persuasion  failed,  recourse  was  had  to  severity  and 
intimidation.  1.  The  superior  and  his  monks,  the 
tenants,  servants,  and  neighbours,  were  subjected  to 
a minute  and  rigorous  examination  : each  was  ex- 
horted, was  commanded,  to  accuse  the  other;  and 
every  groundless  tale,  every  malicious  insinuation, 
was  carefully  collected  and  recoiled.  2.  The  com- 
missioners called  for  the  accounts  of  the  house,  com- 
pared the  expenditure  with  the  receipts,  scrutinized 
every  article  with  an  eye  of  suspicion  and  hostility, 
and  required  the  production  of  all  the  moneys,  plate, 
and  jewels.  3.  They  proceeded  to  search  the  library 
and  the  private  rooms  for  papers  and  books ; and  the 
discovery  of  any  opinion  or  treatise  in  favour  of  the 
papal  supremacy,  or  of  the  validity  of  Henry’s  first 
marriage,  was  taken  as  a sufficient  proof  of  adhesion  to 
the  king’s  enemies,  and  of  disobedience  to  the  statutes 
of  the  realm.1  The  general  result  was  a real  or  ficti- 

1 These  transactions  are  thus  described  by  Catherine  Bulkeley, 
abbess  of  Godstow,  in  a letter  to  Cromwell : — “ Dr.  London  is 
“ soddenlye  commyd  unto  me  with  a great  rowte  with  him,  and 
“ doth  threten  me  and  my  sisters,  saying  that  he  hath  the  king’s 
“ commission  to  suppress  this  house  spyte  of  my  tethe.  When  I 
“ shewyd  him  playne  that  I wolde  never  surrender  to  his  hande, 
“ being  an  awncyent  enemye,  now  he  begins  to  intrete  me,  and 
“ invegle  my  sisters  one  by  one,  otherwise  than  I ever  herde  tell 
“ that  the  king’s  subjects  had  been  handelyd  ; and  here  taryeth,  and 
“ contynueth  to  my  grete  coste  and  charges,  and  will  not  take  my 
“ answere,  that  I will  not  surrender,  till  1 know  the  king’s  gracious 
“ commandment,  or  your  good  lordship’s  ....  And  notwithstand- 
“ ing,  that  Dr.  London,  like  an  untrewe  man,  hath  informed  your 
“ lordship  that  I am  a spoiler  and  a waster,  your  good  lordship  shall 
“know  that  the  contrarie  is  trewe;  for  I have  not  alienatyd  one 
“halporthe  of  the  goods  of  this  monasterie  movable  or  immovable.” 
— Cleop.  E.  iv.  p.  238.  Of  this  Dr.  London  Fuller  says,  “ He  was 
“ no  great  saint;  for  afterwards  he  was  publicly  convicted  of  perjury, 
“ and  adjudged  to  ride  with  his  face  to  the  horse-tail  at  Windsor 
“ and  Ockingham”  (p.  314) : to  which  may  be  added  that  he  was 
also  condemned  to  do  public  penance  at  Oxford  for  incontinency 
with  two  women,  the  mother  and  daughter. — Strype,  i.  377. 


RAPACITY  OF  THE  KING. 


95 


tious  charge  of  immorality,  or  peculation,  or  high 
treason.  But  many  superiors,  before  the  termination 
of  the  inquiry,  deemed  it  prudent  to  obey  the  royal 
pleasure  : some,  urged  on  the  one  hand  by  fear,  on 
the  other  by  scruples,  resigned  their  situations,  and 
were  replaced  by  successors  of  more  easy  and  accom- 
modating loyalty  ; and  the  obstinacy  of  the  refractory 
monks  and  abbots  was  punished  with  imprisonment 
during  the  king’s  pleasure.  But  the  lot  of  these  was 
calculated  to  terrify  their  brethren.  Some  of  them, 
like  the  Carthusians,  confined  in  Newgate,  were  left 
to  perish  through  hunger,  disease,  and  neglect  f 
others,  like  the  abbots  of  Colchester,  Beading,  and 
Glastonbury,  were  executed  as  felons  or  traitors.2 

During  these  proceedings,  the  religious  bodies,  in- 

1 Ellis,  ii.  98.  The  fate  of  these  Carthusians  is  thus  announced 
to  Cromwell  in  a letter  from  Bedyl,  one  of  the  visitors : — “ My  very 
“ good  lord,  after  my  most  hearty  commendations — It  shall  please 
“your  lordship  to  understand  that  the  monks  of  the  Charter-house 
“here  at  London,  committed  to  Newgate  for  their  treacherous 
“ behaviour  continued  against  the  king’s  grace,  be  almost  dispatched 
“ by  the  hand  of  God,  as  it  may  appear  to  you  by  this  bill  enclosed. 
“ Wherefore,  considering  their  behaviour,  and  the  whole  matter,  I 
“ am  not  sorry ; but  would  that  all  such  as  love  not  the  king’s 
“highness,  and  his  worldly  honour,  were  in  like  case.  There  be 
“ departed,  Greenwood,  Davye,  Salte,  Peerson,  Greene.  There  be 
“ at  the  point  of  death,  Scriven,  Reading.  There  be  sick,  Jonson, 
“Horne.  One  is  whole,  Bird.” — Cleop.  E.  iv.  fol.  217.  Ellis, 
ii.  76. 

2 Whiting,  abbot  of  Glastonbury,  “a  very  sick  and  weakly  old 
“ man,”  was  sent  to  the  Tower,  examined  by  Cromwell,  and  brought 
to  confess  that  he  had  been  privy  to  concealment  of  some  of  the  plate 
belonging  to  the  abbey.  He  was  then  sent  back,  and  on  Nov.  16 
Lord  Russell  wrote  to  Cromwell — “ My  Lorde,  thies  shal  be  to  as- 
“ serteyne  that  on  Thursdaye  the  xiiij  daye  of  this  present  moneth 
“ the  abbot  was  arrayned,  and  the  next  daye  putt  to  execution  with 
“ ij  other  of  his  monkes  for  the  robbyng  of  Glastonburye  churche, 
“ on  the  Torre  Hyll,  the  seyde  abbottes  body  beyng  devyded  in  fower 
“partes,  and  heedd  stryken  off,  whereof  oone  quarter  stondyth 
“ at  Welles,  another  at  Bathe,  and  at  Ylchester  and  Brigewater  the 
“rest,  and  his  hedd  uppon  the  abbey  gate  at  Glaston.” — State 
Papers,  i.  621. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


96 


HENRY  VII I. 


chap,  stead  of  uniting  in  their  common  defence,  seem  to 
a.d.  1538.  have  awaited  singly  their  fate  with  the  apathy  of 
despair.  A few  houses  only,  through  the  agency  of 
their  friends,  sought  to  purchase  the  royal  favour  with 
offers  of  money  and  lands  ; but  the  rapacity  of  the 
king  refused  to  accept  a part  when  the  whole  was  at 
his  mercy ; and  a hill  was  brought  into  parliament, 
Mxa^9-  vesting  in  the  crown  all  the  property,  moveable  and 
immoveable,  of  the  monastic  establishments,  which 
either  had  already  been,  or  should  hereafter  be  sup- 
pressed, abolished,  or  surrendered.1  The  advocates 
of  the  measure  painted  its  advantages  in  the  most 
fascinating  colours.  It  would  put  an  end  to  pauper- 
ism and  taxation  ; it  would  enable  the  king  to  create 
and  support  earls,  barons,  and  knights ; to  wage  war 
i n future  without  any  additional  burden  to  the  people  • 
and  to  free  the  nation  from  all  apprehension  of  danger 
from  foreign  enmity  or  internal  discontent.2 

The  house  of  Lords  at  that  period  contained  twenty- 
eight  abbots,  and  the  two  priors  of  Coventry  and  of 
St.  John  of  Jerusalem.  Though  they  could  not  be 
ignorant  of  the  real  object  of  the  bill,  not  one  dared 
to  open  his  mouth  against  it,  and  before  the  next 
session  their  respective  houses,  and  with  the  houses 
their  right  to  sit  as  lords  of  parliament,  had  ceased  to 

1 It  should  be  observed  that  the  transfer  of  the  monastic  property, 
and  the  suppression  of  the  monastic  orders,  were  not  in  the  first  in- 
stance effected  by  legislative  enactment.  It  had  been  artfully 
devised  that  both  should  proceed  from  the  monastic  bodies  them- 
selves, who  successively  surrendered  their  property  to  the  king,  and 
thus  in  fact  dissolved  their  own  establishments.  It  might,  however, 
be  argued  that,  as  each  member  possessed  only  a life-interest  in  the 
property,  they  could  not  singly  or  collectively  confer  any  thing  more 
/ on  the  sovereign ; and,  therefore,  the  legislature  came  to  his  assist- 
/ ance,  and  by  positive  enactment  vested  in  him  for  ever  all  monastic 
property  which  then  was,  or  afterwards  might  be,  actually  in  his 
possession.  * Coke,  Inst.  iv.  44.  Strype,  i.  211,  272, 


INCREASE  OF  PAUPERISM. 


97 


exist.  The  abolition  of  the  latter  was  a matter  of  no  chap. 
consequence ; but  the  suppression  of  the  religious  a.d.  i539. 
houses  failed  to  produce  the  benefits  which  had  been 
so  ostentatiously  foretold.  Pauperism  was  found  to 
increase ; the  monastic  property  was  lavishly  squan- 
dered among  the  parasites  of  the  court ; and  the  king, 
instead  of  lightening  the  national  burthens,  demanded 
compensation  for  the  expense  which  he  had  incurred 
in  the  reformation  of  religion.  Within  twelve  months 
a subsidy  of  two-tenths  and  two-fifteenths  was  ex- 
torted by  him  from  the  reluctant  gratitude  of  his 
parliament.1 

By  the  spring  of  the  year  1540,  all  the  monastic 
establishments  in  the  kingdom  had  been  torn  from 
the  possession  of  the  real  owners  by  forced  and  illegal 
surrenders.2  To  soften  the  odium  of  the  measure, 
much  has  been  said  of  the  immorality  practised,  or 
supposed  to  be  practised,  within  the  monasteries.  It 

1 Journals,  no,  in,  135.  See  also  the  preface  to  Stowe  by- 
Howes.  According  to  Bale,  an  ardent  reformer,  “ A great  part  of 
“ this  treasure  was  turned  to  the  upholding  of  dice-playing,  masking, 

“ and  banqueting ; yea/’  he  adds,  “ (I  would  I could  not  by  just 

“ occasion  speak  it)  bribing,  wh , and  swearing.” — Bale  apud 

Strype,  i.  346. 

2 As  soon  as  an  abbey  was  surrendered,  1.  The  commissioners 
broke  its  seal,  and  assigned  pensions  to  the  members.  2 . The  plate 
and  jewels  were  reserved  for  the  king;  the  furniture  and  goods  were 
sold ; and  the  money  was  paid  into  the  Augmentation  Office,  lately 
established  for  that  purpose.  3.  The  abbot’s  lodgings  and  the 
offices  were  left  standing  for  the  convenience  of  the  next  occupant ; 
the  church,  cloisters,  and  apartments  for  the  monks  were  stripped  of 
the  lead  and  every  saleable  article,  and  then  left  to  fall  in  ruins. — 

Burnet,  i.  Rec.  15 1.  4.  The  lands  were  by  degrees  alienated  from 

the  crown  by  gift,  sale,  or  exchange.  From  a commission  in  Rymer 
(xiv.  653)  it  appears  that  the  lands  sold  at  twenty,  the  buildings  at 
fifteen  years’  purchase ; the  buyers  were  to  hold  of  the  crown,  paying 
a reserved  rent,  equal  to  one-tenth  of  the  usual  rent.  5.  The  annual 
revenue  of  all  the  suppressed  houses  amounted  to  142,914^.  12s.  9^d., 
about  the  one-and-twentieth  part  of  the  whole  rental  of  the  kingdom, 
if  Hume  be  correct  in  taking  that  rental  at  three  millions. 

VOL.  Y.  H 


98 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


is  not  in  human  nature  that  in  numerous  societies  of 
men,  all  should  be  equally  virtuous.  The  monks  of 
different  descriptions  amounted  to  many  thousands ; 
and  in  such  a multitude  there  must  have  existed  in- 
dividuals whose  conduct  was  a disgrace  to  their  pro- 
fession. But  when  this  had  been  conceded  on  the 
one  hand,  it  ought  to  be  admitted  on  the  other,  that 
the  charges  against  them  are  entitled  to  very  little 
credit.  They  are  ex  parte  statements,  to  which  the 
accused  had  no  opportunity  of  replying,  and  were 
made  to  silence  inquiry  and  sanctify  injustice.  Of  the 
commissioners,  some  were  not  very  immaculate  cha- 
racters themselves  ;l  all  were  stimulated  to  invent  and 
exaggerate,  both  by  the  known  rapacity  of  the  king, 
and  by  their  own  prospects  of  personal  interest.2 
There  is,  however,  one  fact,  which  to  me  appears  de- 
cisive on  the  subject.  Of  all  the  monastic  bodies, 
perhaps  the  monks  of  Christ-ckurch  have  suffered  the 
most  in  reputation ; they  are  charged  with  habitually 
indulging  the  most  immoral  and  shameful  propensities- 
Yet,  when  Archbishop  Cranmer  named  the  clergy  for 
the  service  of  his  cathedral,  he  selected  from  these  very 
men  no  fewer  than  eight  prebendaries,  ten  minor 
canons,  nine  scholars,  and  two  choristers.  From  his 
long  residence  in  Canterbury  he  could  not  be  ignorant 

1 As  London,  mentioned  in  note  50,  and  Bedyl,  mentioned  in  note 
51,  who,  from  a letter  of  one  of  his  colleagues  (Fuller,  315)  appears 
to  have  been  an  artful  but  profligate  man.  If  we  believe  the  northern 
insurgents,  Layton  and  Lee  were  not  much  better. 

2 MS.  Cleop.  E.  iv.  106,  213.  When  Gifford  gave  a favourable 
character  of  the  house,  the  king  maintained  that  he  had  been  bribed. 
The  reader  may  see  the  vices  ascribed  to  the  monks  of  some  houses 
in  Strype,  i.  252 — 257;  or  Cleop.  E.  iv.  124,  127,  131,  134,  147  ; 
and  letters  in  favour  of  others,  ibid.  203,  209,  210,  213,  257,  269. 
Much  has  been  written  about  the  u blood  of  Hales/’ — See  the  vindi- 
cation of  the  monks  on  that  head  by  Hearne,  in  App.  to  Benedictus 
Abbas,  p.  751. 


NEW  BISHOPRICS. 


99 


of  tlieir  previous  conduct ; from  respect  for  his  own 
character,  he  would  not  surround  himself  with  men 
addicted  to  the  most  disgraceful  vices.1 

* To  lull  his  own  conscience,  or  to  silence  the  mur- 
murs of  his  subjects,  Henry  resolved  to  appropriate  a 
portion  of  the  spoil  to  the  advancement  of  religion ; 
and  for  that  purpose  was  authorized  by  act  of  parlia- 
ment to  establish  new  bishoprics,  deaneries,  and  col- 
leges,  and  to  endow  them  with  adequate  revenues  out 
of  the  lands  of  the  suppressed  monasteries.  He  seems 
to  have  frequently  amused  himself  with  this  project. 
Fiom  papers  extant  in  his  own  hand,  it  appears  that 
plans  were  devised,  the  revenues  fixed,  the  incumbents 
appointed  on  paper ; but  when  he  attempted  to  exe- 
cute the  design,  unforeseen  difficulties  arose  ; his 
donations  to  others  had  already  alienated  the  greater 
pait  of  the  property ; ana  his  own  wants  required  the 
retention  of  the  remainder.  Out  of  eighteen,  the 
number  originally  intended,  only  six  episcopal  sees, 
those  of  Westminster,  Oxford,  Peterborough,  Bristol, 
Chester,  and  Gloucester,  were  established;  and  even 
these  were  at  first  so  scantily  endowed,  that  the  new 
prelates  for  some  years  enjoyed  little  more  than  a 
nominal  income.-  At  the  same  time  the  king  con- 
verted fourteen  abbeys  and  priories  into  cathedral  and 
collegiate  churches,  attaching  to  each  a dean  and  a 
certain  number  of  prebendaries ; but  was  careful  to 
retain  for  himself  a portion  of  the  original  possessions, 
and  to  impose  on  the  chapters  the  obligation  of  con- 
tributing annually  a certain  sum  to  the  support  of  the 
resident  poor,  and  another  for  the  repair  of  the  high- 

1 See  Stevens,  Monast.  i.  386  ; also  Brown  Willis,  i.  37  ; Harmer 
47  ? Hearne,  pref.  to  sec.  Append,  to  Lei.  Collect,  p.  84 

Journals,  112.  Strype,  i.  Eec.  275.  Rym.  xiv.  700,  717— 
736,  748,  754.  1 ' 

H 2 


; CHAP. 
II. 

A.D.  1540. 


100 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAR 

II. 

A.  I).  1540. 


ways.1  Thus  he  continued  to  the  end  of  his  reign,, 
taking  from  the  church  with  one  hand,  and  restoring 
with  the  other,  but  taking  largely  and  restoring 
sparingly,  extorting  from  the  more  wealthy  prelates 
exchanges  of  lands  and  advowsons,  and  in  return 
occasionally  endowing  a rectory  or  re-establishing  a 
charitable  foundation.  Still  his  treasury  was  empty ; 
the  only  individuals  who  profited  by  the  pillage  were 
the  men  whom  he  had  lately  raised  to  office  and  rank, 
whose  importunities  never  ceased,  and  whose  rapacity 
could  never  be  satisfied. 

III.  From  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  the  papal 
authority  to  the  close  of  Henry's  reign,  the  creed  of 
the  church  of  England  depended  on  the  theological 
caprice  of  its  supreme  head.  The  clergy  were  divided 
into  two  opposite  factions,  denominated  the  men  of 
the  old  and  the  new  learning.  The  chief  of  the 
former  was  Gardiner  bishop  of  Winchester,  who  was 
ably  supported  by  Lee  archbishop  of  York,  Stokesley 
bishop  of  London,  Tunstall  of  Durham,  and  Clarke  of 
Bath  and  Wells.  The  latter  acknowledged  for  their 
leaders,  Cranmer  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Shaxton 
of  Sarum,  Latimer  of  Worcester,  and  Fox  of  Hereford. 
These  could  depend  on  the  powerful  interest  of  Crom- 
well the  vicar-general,  and  of  Audeley  the  lord  Chan- 
cellor ; the  others  on  that  of  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  and 
of  Wriothesley  the  premier  secretary.  But  none  of 
the  prelates  on  either  side,  warmly  as  they  might  be 
attached  to  their  own  opinions,  aspired  to  the  palm  of 

1 They  were  Canterbury,  Rochester,  Westminster,  Winchester, 
Bristol,  Gloucester,  Worcester,  Chester,  Burton-upon- Trent,  Carlisle, 
Durham,  Thornton,  Peterborough,  and  Ely.  The  dean  and  chapter 
of  Canterbury  were  enjoined  to  give  annually  to  the  poor  100/., 
towards  the  highways  40 1.  The  others  were  rated  in  proportion. — 
Rym.  xv.  77. 


RELIGIOUS  PARTIES. 


101 


martyrdom.  They  possessed  little  of  that  firmness  of 
mind,  of  that  high  and  unbending  spirit,  which  gene- 
rally characterizes  the  leaders  of  religious  parties  ; but 
were  always  ready  to  suppress,  or  even  to  abjure,  their 
Teal  sentiments  at  the  command  of  their  wayward  and 
imperious  master.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  Gardiner  and 
his  associates,  to  avoid  the  royal  displeasure,  consented 
to  renounce  the  papal  supremacy,  and  to  subscribe  to 
every  successive  innovation  in  the  established  creed, 
Cranmer  and  his  friends  on  the  other  submitted  with 
equal  weakness  to  teach  doctrines  which  they  disap- 
proved, to  practise  a worship  which  they  deemed 
idolatrous  or  superstitious,  and  to  consign  men  to  the 
stake  for  the  open  profession  of  tenets,  which,  there  is 
reason  to  suspect,  they  themselves  inwardly  believed. 
Henry’s  infallibility  continually  oscillated  between  the 
two  parties.  If  his  hostility  to  the  court  of  Rome  led 
him  to  incline  towards  the  men  of  the  new  learning,  he 
was  quickly  brought  back  again  by  his  attachment  to 
the  doctrines  which  he  had  formerly  maintained  in 
his  controversy  with  Luther.  The^hishops  on  both 
sides  acted  with  equal  caution.  They  carefully  studied 
the  inclinations  of  the  king,  sought  by  the  most  servile 
submission  to  win  his  confidence,  and  employed  all  their 
vigilance  to  defeat  the  intrigues  and  to  undermine  the 
credit  of  their  adversaries. 

Though  the  refusal  of  the  German  reformers  to 
approve  of  the  divorce  had  not  contributed  to  efface 
that  unfavourable  impression  which  had  been  originally 
made  on  the  king’s  mind  by  the  writings  of  Luther, 
his  subsequent  defection  from  the  see  of  Rome 
prompted  him  to  seek  an  union  with  those  who  for 
so  many  years  had  set  at  defiance  the  authority  and 
censure  of  the  pontiff.  The  formation  of  the  con- 


CHAP. 

ii. 

A..I).  1540. 


102 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAI’. 

II. 

A.D.  1529. 
April  19. 


i53°- 
Jan.  24. 

Dec.  22. 


federacy  at  Torgau1  had  been  followed  by  the  diet  of 
Spire  ; and  six  princes  with  fourteen  cities  had  signed 
a formal  protest  against  the  decree  of  that  assembly.- 
It  was  in  vain  that  at  the  next  diet  of  Augsburg, 
Charles  endeavoured  to  appease  the  Protestants  by 
condescension,  or  to  intimidate  them  by  menaces. 
They  presented  to  him  a confession  of  their  faith, 
refused  to  submit  to  his  determination,  concluded  a 
new  confederacy  at  Smalcald,  and  wrote  a defence  of 
their  proceedings  to  the  kings  of  England  and  France. 
Both  returned  complimentary  answers  ; and  the  latter, 
in  1535,  invited  to  his  court  Melancthon,  the  most 
learned  and  moderate  of  the  new  teachers.  The 
moment  the  intelligence  was  communicated  to  Henry, 
he  despatched  letters  and  messengers  first  to  Germany, 
and  in  the  next  place  to  Paris ; those  to  intercept 
Melancthon  on  his  journey,  these  to  prevail  on  him, 
if  he  had  reached  France,  to  come  forward  without 
interruption  to  England.3  What  might  be  the  kings 
object,  it  were  idle  to  conjecture ; but  the  elector  of 
Saxony  was  persuaded  by  the  policy  or  jealousy  of 
Luther  to  detain  Melancthon  within  his  own  territory. 
Soon  afterwards,  Henry  sent  to  the  Protestant  princes 
at  Smalcald  an  embassy,  consisting  of  the  bishop  of 
Hereford,  Archdeacon  Heath,  and  Hr.  Barnes,  to  re- 

1 See  yoI.  iv.  p.  471. 

2 This  instrument  displays  in  strong  colours  the  intolerance  of  the 
first  reformers.  The  decree,  among  other  things,  forbade  any 
person,  layman  or  ecclesiastic,  to  employ  violence  and  constraint  in 
matters  of  religion,  to  abolish  the  mass  by  force,  or  to  prohibit, 
command,  or  compel  any  one  to  assist  at  it.  They  replied,  that  they 
could  not  consent  to  this  article ; that  conscience  forced  them  to 
abolish  the  mass  ; nor  would  they  permit  any  of  their  subjects  to  be 
present  at  it. — Sleidan,  1.  vi.  p.  80.  It  was  from  this  protestation 
that  the  reformers  acquired  the  name  of  Protestants. 

3 Mr.  Coxe  has  printed  the  original  letters  in  his  Life  of  Melancthon, 

p-  37 1 . 384- 


MISSION  FROM  THE  GERMAN  REFORMERS.  103 


present  to  them  that,  as  both  he  and  they  had  defied  chap. 
the  authority  of  the  pontiff,  it  might  be  for  their  a.d.  ^530. 
mutual  interest  to  join  in  one  common  confederacy. 

But  the  Germans;  assuming  a lofty  tone,  required  that 
he  should  subscribe  to  their  confession  of  faith,  and 
should  advance,  partly  as  a loan,  partly  as  a present, 
the  sum  of  one  hundred,  or  if  it  were  necessary,  of  two 
hundred  thousand  crowns ; and,  as  a reward  for  his 
compliance,  offered  to  him  the  title  of  head  of  the 
league,  and  promised  not  to  obey  any  decrees  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  nor  to  acknowledge  any  council  con- 
voked by  the  pontiff  without  the  consent  of  the  king. 

Henry  took  a long  interval  to  reply,  and  consulted 
Gardiner,  at  that  time  his  ambassador  in  France,  who, 
anxious  to  wean  his  sovereign  from  this  heterodox 
connection,  opposed  the  demands  of  the  princes  with 
much  art  and  ability.  Why  was  Henry,  he  asked,  to 
subscribe  to  their  confession  of  faith  ? Had  he  eman- 
cipated himself  from  the  usurped  authority  of  the 
pontiff,  to  put  his  neck  under  the  yoke  of  the  German 
divines  ? “ It  would  be  rather  a change  of  a bond  of 

“ dependence,  than  a riddance  thereof. 5 ’ The  word  of 
God  authorized  the  king  to  make  all  necessary  re- 
formation in  religious  matters  ; but  now  his  hands 
were  to  be  tied,  till  he  should  ask  and  obtain  the  con- 
sent of  the  princes  at  Smalcald.  In  the  next  place, 
those  princes  were  incompetent  to  conclude  such  a 
league.  The  emperor  was  the  head  of  the  German, 
on  the  same  grounds  as  Henry  was  the  head  of  the 
English  church ; nor  could  the  subjects  of  the  one 
lawfully  make  religious  treaties  with  a foreign  prince, 
with  greater  right  than  those  of  the  other.  At  all 
events,  the  king  ought  to  require  from  them,  as  pre- 
liminary concessions,  the  approbation  of  his  divorce, 


104 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1535. 


1536* 

March  12. 


April  24. 


and  the  acknowledgment  of  his  supremacy  ; two  points 
to  which  Gardiner  well  knew  that  the  Germans  would 
never  accede.  Had  he  been  present,  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that,  by  thus  appealing  to  the  king's 
favourite  prejudices,  he  would  have  broken  off  the 
negotiation  altogether  ; as  it  was,  Henry  replied  by 
thanking  them  for  their  good  will,  and  consenting  to 
aid  them  with  money  on  certain  conditions ; but  he 
required  that  a deputation  of  German  divines  should 
previously  repair  to  England,  and,  in  conjunction  with 
the  English  theologians,  should  fix  the  firm  basis 
of  a thorough  reformation.  After  some  discussion, 
Melancthon,  with  certain  divines,  received  an  order 
to  visit  Henry ; but  the  order  was  revoked  as  soon  as 
the  unfortunate  end  of  Anne  Boleyn  was  known  in 
Germany.  The  reformers  suspected  that  the  king 
was  not  sincere  in  his  religious  professions ; and  that 
now,  when  the  original  cause  of  dissension  was  re- 
moved, he  would  seek  a reconciliation  with  both  the 
emperor  and  the  pontiff.1 

Soon  afterwards,  the  lower  house  of  convocation  de- 
nounced to  the  higher  fifty -nine  propositions  extracted 
from  the  publications  of  different  reformed  writers. 
The  subject  instantly  attracted  the  notice  of  the  head 
of  the  church ; and  Henry,  with  the  aid  of  his  theo- 
logians, compiled  a book  of  “ Articles,"  which  was 
presented  to  the  convocation  by  Cromwell,  and  sub- 
scribed by  him  and  the  other  members.  It  may  be 
divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  declares  that  the 
belief  of  the  Apostles’  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  and 

1 See  Collier,  ii.  Records,  p.  23  ; and  Strype,  i.  Rec.  157 — 163. 
In  a letter  written  by  Cromwell  on  this  occasion,  he  says,  “ The  king, 
4i  knowing  himself  to  be  the  learnedest  prince  in  Europe,  he  thought 
“ it  became  not  him  to  submit  to  them,  but  he  expected  they  should 
“ submit  to  him.” — Burnet,  iii.  112. 


ARTICLES  OF  DOCTRINE. 


105 


the  Athanasian  Creed,  is  necessary  for  salvation  ; the  chap. 
second  explains  the  three  great  sacraments  of  baptism,  a.d.  1536. 
penance,  and  the  altar,  and  pronounces  them  the 
ordinary  means  of  justification ; the  third  teaches 
that,  though  the  use  of  images,  the  honouring  of  the 
saiuts,  the  soliciting  of  their  intercession,  and  the 
usual  ceremonies  in  the  service,  have  not  in  them- 
selves the  power  to  remit  sin,  or  justify  the  soul,  yet 
they  are  highly  profitable,  and  ought  to  be  retained. — 
Throughout  the  work,  Henry’s  attachment  to  the 
ancient  faith  is  most  manifest ; and  the  only  conces- 
sion which  he  makes  to  the  men  of  the  new  learning, 
is  the  order  for  the  removal  of  abuses,  with  perhaps 
the  omission  of  a few  controverted  subjects.  The 
vicar-general  immediately  issued  injunctions,  in  the 
name  of  the  king,  that  “ the  Articles  ” should  be  read 
to  the  people  in  the  churches  without  any  comment ; 
and  that,  until  the  next  Michaelmas,  no  clergyman  July  12. 
should  presume  to  preach  in  public  unless  he  were  a 
bishop,  or  spoke  in  the  presence  of  a bishop,  or  were 
licensed  to  teach  in  the  cathedral,  at  the  peril  of  the 
bishop.1 

By  these  articles,  Henry  had  now  fixed  the  land- 
marks of  English  orthodoxy  ; for  the  better  informa- 
tion of  his  subjects,  he  ordered  the  convocation  “ to 
“ set  forth  a plain  and  sincere  exposition  of  doctrine.” 

The  task  was  accomplished  by  the  publication  of  a 
work  entitled,  “ The  godly  and  pious  Institution  of 
“ a Christian  Man,”  subscribed  by  the  archbishops, 
bishops,  archdeacons,  and  certain  doctors  of  canon  and 
civil  law,  and  pronounced  by  them  to  accord  “ in  all 
“ things  with  the  very  true  meaning  of  Scripture.”2 
It  explains  in  succession  the  creed,  the  seven  sacra- 

1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  804 — 808,  817 — 823.  2 Ibid.  830. 


106 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  merits,  which  it  divides  into  three  of  a higher,  and  four 
a.d.  1536.  of  a lower  order,  the  ten  commandments,  the  Pater- 
noster and  Ave  Maria,  justification,  and  purgatory.  It 
is  chiefly  remarkable  for  the  earnestness  with  which 
it  refuses  salvation  to  all  persons  out  of  the  pale  of 
the  Catholic  church,  denies  the  supremacy  of  the 
pontiff,  and  inculcates  passive  obedience  to  the  king. 
It  teaches  that  no  cause  whatever  can  authorize  the 
subject  to  draw  the  sword  against  his  prince ; that 
sovereigns  are  accountable  to  God  alone ; and  that 
the  only  remedy  against  oppression  is  to  pray  that 
God  would  change  the  heart  of  the  despot,  and  induce 
him  to  make  a right  use  of  his  power.1 

The  design  of  a conference  between  the  English 
and  German  divines  was  soon  afterwards  revived, 
chiefly  at  the  instigation  of  Cranmer.  Had  the 
archbishop  openly  called  in  question  any  of  “the 
“ Articles  ” lately  determined  by  Henry,  he  would 
probably  have  paid  with  his  head  the  forfeit  of  his 
presumption ; but  he  conceived  that  foreigners  might 
venture  to  defend  their  own  creed  without  giving 
offence ; and  flattered  himself  with  the  hope  that 
their  reasoning  might  make  impression  on  the  theolo- 
gical obstinacy  of  the  king.  Burkhard,  vice-chancellor 
to  the  elector  of  Saxony,  Boyneburg,  doctor  of  laws, 
and  Myconius,  superintendent  of  Saxe-Gotha,  arrived 
lily.  in  England  in  the  spring  of  1 538  ; and  frequent  confer- 
ences were  held  between  them  and  a commission  of 
divines  appointed  by  Henry.  But  the  policy  of  Cran- 
mer was  disappointed.  His  German  missionaries  were 
not  deficient  in  zeal  or  learning,  but  it  was  their  lot 
August  5.  to  labour  on  an  ungrateful  soil.  As  a last  effort,  they 
laid  before  the  king  a detailed  statement  of  the  rea- 

1 Collier,  ii.  139 — 143. 


DESTRUCTION  OF  SHRINES. 


107 


sons  on  which  they  grounded  their  demand  of  the 
concession  of  the  cup  to  the  laity,  of  the  abrogation 
of  private  masses,  and  of  the  permission  of  marriage 
to  the  priesthood  ; but  Henry,  having,  with  the  aid  of 
the  bishop  of  Durham,  condescended  to  answer  their 
arguments,  thanked  them  for  their  trouble,  granted 
them  permission  to  return  home,  and  promised  to 
bear  honourable  testimony  to  their  learning,  zeal,  and 
talents.1 

Their  departure  was  a severe  mortification  to  the 
men  of  the  new  doctrine.  Still,  however,  the  spirit 
of  innovation  continued  to  make  a slow  but  steady- 
progress  ; and,  though  it  might  not  keep  pace  with 
their  wishes,  afforded  them  grounds  to  hope  for  a 
favourable  result.  The  king  redeemed  his  pledge  of 
“ the  removal  of  abuses/’  By  his  order,  a number  of 
holidays  were  abolished,  which  he  considered  super- 
fluous, as  far  as  regarded  religion,  and  injurious,  inas- 
much as  they  restrained  the  industry  of  the  people. 
The  clergy  were  enjoinedto  admonish  their  parishioners, 
that  images  were  permitted  only  as  books  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  unlettered ; that  to  abuse  them  for 
any  other  purpose  was  idolatry ; and  that  the  king 
intended  to  remove  whatever  might  be  the  “occasion 
“ of  so  great  an  offence  to  God,  and  so  great  a danger 
“ to  the  souls  of  his  loving  subjects.”2  For  this  pur- 

1 Both  papers  are  printed  by  Burnet,  i.  Addenda,  p.  332 — 360. 
See  others  on  the  subject  in  Strype,  i.  Rec.  258 — 262. 

2 Wilkins,  Con.  iii.  816,  823,  826.  One  of  the  principal  roods, 
called  Darvel  Gatheren,  was  brought  from  Wales  to  London  to  be 
employed  at  the  execution  of  Dr.  Forest ; because  there  was  an  old 
saying,  that  Darvel  Gatheren  would  one  day  burn  a forest.  The 
doctor  belonged  to  the  convent  of  Observant  Friars  at  Greenwich, 
and  was  confessor  to  Queen  Catherine,  a fact  of  itself  sufficient  to 
set  aside  all  the  ill-defined  charges  against  him  in  the  letters  of 
Lyst,  a discontented  lay  brother,  to  Cromwell  and  the  lady  mar- 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


108 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


pose  shrineswere  demolished;  genuine  or  supposititious 
relics  were  burnt ; and  the  most,  celebrated  roods  and 
images  were  broken  into  fragments,  or  given  to  the 
flames.  To  make  the  greater  impression,  the  royal 
agents  conducted  their  operations  with  much  parade 
and  solemnity,  and  employed  every  engine  to  detect 
and  expose  the  real  or  pretended  frauds  by  which 
the  devotion  of  the  people  had  been  attracted  towards 
particular  churches.  Whatever  credit  may  be  due  to 
reports  originating  with  men  whose  great  object  it 
was  to  bring  the  religious  orders  into  disrepute,  and 
to  terrify  them  into  the  surrender  of  their  property,1 
there  is  one  proceeding,  which,  on  account  of  its 
singularity  and  absurdity,  deserves  the  attention  of 
the  reader.  It  had  been  suggested  that,  as  long  as 

quess  (Anne  Boleyn)  in  1532  and  1533.  (See  them  in  Ellis,  3rd 
series,  ii.  245 — 270.)  Forest  was  a powerful  opponent  of  the 
divorce,  and  sent  away  by  the  king’s  order  from  Greenwich  to  a con- 
vent in  the  north.  In  1538  he  was  brought  back  to  London,  and 
condemned  (in  what  court  is  not  mentioned)  to  suffer  as  a traitor 
and  a heretic.  For  this  purpose  a double  gallows  was  erected  in 
Smithfield.  In  the  midst,  Forest  was  suspended  by  chains  passed 
round  his  waist  and  under  his  arms ; in  front,  on  a platform,  sat  the 
lord  mayor,  and  several  of  the  privy  council ; and  from  a pulpit  on 
the  side,  preached  Latimer,  bishop  of  Worcester.  The  bishop 
ended  with  an  offer  of  pardon  from  the  king  to  Forest,  if  he  would 
recant.  This  the  friar  refused  : a slow  fire  was  kindled  under  him: 
he  remained  constant  in  his  resolution ; and  was  consumed  with 
the  rood.  The  heresy  for  which  he  was  burnt  is  plain  from  the 
lines  affixed  to  the  gallows  : — 

“ Forest  the  friar, 

That  infamous  liar, 

That  wilfully  will  be  dead, 

In  his  contumacy, 

The  gospel  doth  deny, 

The  king  to  be  supreme  head.” 

See  Sanders,  138,  163  ; Hall,  232  ; Burnet,  i.  358  ; Wood,  Athenae, 
i.  42. 

1 Most  of  these  tales  depend  at  present  on  the  very  questionable 
authority  of  William  Thomas,  the  author  of  II  Pelerine  Inglese,  who 
has  led  Burnet  into  a multitude  of  errors. — See  Collier,  ii.  149. 


CITATION  OF  ST.  THOMAS. 


109 


the  name  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  should  remain 
in  the  calendar,  men  would  be  stimulated  by  his 
example  to  brave  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  their 
sovereign.  The  king’s  attorney  was  therefore  in- 
structed to  exhibit  an  information  against  him ; and 
<c  Thomas  Becket,  some  time  archbishop  of  Canter- 
“ bury,”  was  formally  cited  to  appear  in  court  and 
answer  to  the  charge.  The  interval  of  thirty  days, 
allowed  by  the  canon  law,  was  suffered  to  elapse ; 
still  the  saint  neglected  to  quit  the  tomb  in  which  he 
had  reposed  for  two  centuries  and  a half;  and  judgment 
would  have  been  given  against  him  for  default,  had 
not  the  king,  of  his  special  grace,  assigued  him  a 
counsel.  The  court  sat  at  Westminster  ; the  attorney- 
general  and  the  advocate  of  the  accused  were  heard ; 
and  sentence  was  finally  pronounced,  that  Thomas, 
some  time  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had  been  guilty 
of  rebellion,  contumacy,  and  treason ; that  his  bones 
should  be  publicly  burnt,  to  admonish  the  living  of 
their  duty  by  the  punishment  of  the  dead  ; and  that 
the  offerings  which  had  been  made  at  his  shrine,  the 
personal  property  of  the  reputed  saint,  should  be  for- 
feited to  the  crown.1  A commission  was  accordingly 
issued ; the  sentence  was  executed  in  due  form ; and 
the  gold,  silver,  and  jewels,  the  spoils  obtained  by  the 
demolition  of  the  shrine,  were  conveyed  in  two  pon- 
derous coffers  to  the  royal  treasury.  Soon  afterwards 


1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  835,  836.  As  we  have  only  translations  of  the 
citation  and  judgment  made  by  foreigners,  I might  have  doubted 
the  authenticity  of  these  instruments,  were  they  not  alluded  to  by 
the  king  in  his  proclamation  of  Nov.  16:  “Forasmuch  as  it 
“appeareth  now  clearly  that  Thomas,”  &c.  (Ibid.  848),  and  by 
Paul  III.  in  his  bull  of  Dec.  17  : In  judicium  vocari,  et 
tanquam  contumacem  damnari,  ac  proditorem  declarari  fecerat. — 
Ibid.  841. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 

April  24 


June  11. 


August  11. 
August  19. 

Nov.  16. 


110 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538 


1526. 
Oct.  24. 


a proclamation  was  published  stating  that,  forasmuch 
as  it  now  clearly  appeared,  that  Thomas  Becket  had 
been  killed  in  a riot  excited  by  his  own  obstinacy  and 
intemperate  language,  and  had  been  afterwards  canon- 
ized by  the  bishop  of  Borne  as  the  champion  of  his 
usurped  authority,  the  king’s  majesty  thought  it  ex- 
pedient to  declare  to  his  loving  subjects,  that  he 
was  no  saint,  but  rather  a rebel  and  traitor  to  his 
prince,  and  therefore  strictly  charged  and  commanded 
that  he  should  not  be  esteemed  or  called  a saint,  that 
all  images  and  pictures  of  him  should  be  destroyed, 
the  festivals  in  his  honour  be  abolished,  and  his  name 
and  remembrance  be  erased  out  of  all  books,  under 
pain  of  his  majesty’s  indignation,  and  imprisonment  at 
his  grace’s  pleasure.1 

In  another  and  more  important  point,  the  arch- 
bishop proved  equally  fortunate.  Some  years  had 
passed  since  William  Tyndal,  a tutor  in  a family  of 
Gloucestershire,  but  of  suspicious  orthodoxy,  had  fled 
into  the  Netherlands,  where  he  printed  a version  of 
the  New  Testament  of  his  own  composition.  The 
zeal  of  Warham  was  alarmed ; he  admonished  the 
provincial  bishops  to  destroy  all  the  copies  of  this 
version  to  be  found  in  their  dioceses,  and  purchased, 
at  his  own  cost,  the  copies  remaining  in  the  hands  of 
the  publisher.2  But  the  destruction  of  one  impression 
led  only  to  the  production  of  many.  Editions  in  dif- 


1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  841.  Another  proclamation  of  similar  import 
was  issued  in  ilie  next  month. — Burnet,  iii.  Kec.  152. 

2 The  expense  was  661.  9s.  4d. — Ellis,  3rd  ser.  ii.  86 — 92.  I sus- 
pect that  the  stories  in  Hall,  Burnet,  and  others,  respecting  the 
purchase  of  an  edition  by  Bishop  Tunstall  in  1529,  have  no  other 
foundation  than  this  purchase  by  Archbishop  Warham  in  1527. 
Tunstall’s  commission  to  the  archdeacons  was  issued  in  obedience  to 
Warham’s  letter,  and  is  dated  on  the  same  day,  Oct.  24,  1526. 


TYNDAl/s  BIBLE.  Ill 

ferent  forms,  some  with,  some  without  notes,  were  chap 
issued  on  speculation,  from  different  presses  in  the  a.d.  i52 6 
Netherlands ; and  Tyndal,  continuing  his  labours, 
published  a version  of  some  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Henry  now  deemed  it  proper  to  come  for- 
ward as  defender  of  the  faith.  His  first  object  was 
to  get  into  his  possession  the  translator  himself ; over- 
tures were  made  to  the  exile,  to  induce  him  to  return 
to  his  country,  and  orders  were  sent  to  the  king’s 
agents  to  seize  his  person  and  hurry  him  by  force 
on  board  a ship  bound  to  England.  When  these 
attempts  failed,  a consultation  was  held  with  the 
bishops  and  certain  divines  from  the  two  universities, 
and  a royal  proclamation  was  published,  ordering  all  M^°*5 
copies  of  the  versions  of  the  New  or  Old  Testaments 
to  be  delivered  up ; declaring  that  in  respect  of  the 
malignity  of  the  times,  it  was  better  that  the  Scrip- 
tures should  be  explained  by  the  learned  than  exposed 
to  the  misapprehension  of  the  vulgar ; and  promising 
that,  if  it  should  hereafter  appear  that  erroneous 
opinions  were  forsaken,  and  the  present  version  was 
destroyed,  the  king  would  provide  a new  translation 
by  the  joint  labours  of  great,  learned,  and  catholic 
persons.1 

This  promise  was  not  forgotten  by  Cranmer,  who 
had  witnessed  the  success  with  which  so  powerful 
a weapon  had  been  wielded  by  the  reformers  in 
Germany.  He  often  ventured  to  recall  it  to  the 
royal  recollection  ; his  endeavours  were  seconded  by  D^34ig 
the  petition  of  the  convocation  and  the  recommenda- 
tion of  Cromwell ; and  Grafton  and  Whitechurch, 
two  printers,  obtained  the  royal  license  to  publish  1537. 
a folio  edition  of  the  Bible,  in  English.  It  bore  the 
1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  706,  735,  740. 


112 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  name  of  Thomas  Matthewe,  a fictitious  signature  ; and 
a.d.  i*537.  was  made  up  of  the  version  by  Tyndal,  and  of  another 
by  Coverdale,  printed  very  lately,  as  it  was  thought, 
at  Zurich.  Injunctions  were  now  issued,  that  a Bible 
of  this  edition  should  be  placed  in  every  church  at 
the  joint  expense  of  the  incumbent  and  the  parishioners, 
and  that  any  man  might  have  the  liberty  of  reading 
in  it  at  his  pleasure,  provided  he  did  not  disturb  the 
preacher  in  his  sermon,  nor  the  clergyman  during  the 
service.  Soon  afterwards  this  indulgence  was  ex- 
^539*  tended  from  the  church  to  private  houses ; but  Henry 
was  at  all  times  careful  to  admonish  the  readers,, 
that,  when  they  met  with  difficult  passages,  they 
should  consult  persons  more  learned  than  themselves  ; 
and  to  remind  them,  that  the  liberty  which  they  en- 
joyed was  not  a right  to  which  they  possessed  any 
claim,  but  a favour  granted  “ of  the  royal  liberality 
“ and  goodness/’1 

IV.  The  king,  like  all  other  reformers,  made  his 
own  judgment  the  standard  of  orthodoxy ; but  ho 
enjoyed  an  advantage,  which  few  besides  himself  could 
claim,  the  power  of  enforcing  obedience  to  his  de- 
cisions. That  the  teachers  of  erroneous  doctrine 
ought  to  be  repressed  by  the  authority  of  the  civil 
magistrate,  was  a maxim  which  at  that  period  had 
been  consecrated  by  the  assent  and  practice  of  ages. 
No  sooner  had  Constantine  the  Great  embraced 
Christianity,  than  he  enacted  against  dissenters  from 
the  established  creeds  the  same  punishments  which 
his  pagan  predecessors  had  inflicted  on  those  who 
apostatized  from  the  religion  of  their  fathers.2  His 

1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  776,  81 1,  843,  847,  856. 

2 Socrat.  p.  32.  Sozom.  p.  38,  72,  90,  edit.  Vales.  S.  Aug. 
contra  ep.  Parmen.  1.  1,  c.  7. 


PROSECUTIONS  FOR  HERESY. 


113 


example  was  repeatedly  followed  by  succeeding  em- 
perors;1 it  was  adopted  without  hesitation  by  the 
princes  of  the  northern  tribes,  who,  after  their  con- 
version, were  accustomed  to  supply  from  the  imperial 
constitutions  the  deficiencies  of  their  own  scanty  legis- 
lation. Hence  religious  intolerance  became  part  of 
the  public  law  of  Christendom : the  principle  was 
maintained,  the  practice  enforced,  by  the  reformers 
themselves  f and,  whatever  might  be  the  predominant 
doctrine,  the  dissenter  from  it  invariably  found  himself 
subject  to  civil  restrictions,  perhaps  to  imprisonment 
and  death.  By  Henry  the  laws  against  heresy  were 
executed  with  equal  rigour  both  before  and  after  his 
quarrel  with  the  pontiff.  In  his  third  and  thirteenth 
years  the  teachers  of  Lollardism  had  awakened  by  their 
intemperance  the  zeal  of  the  bishops  ; and  the  king 
by  proclamation  charged  the  civil  magistrates  to  lend 
their  aid  to  the  spiritual  authorities.  Of  the  numbers 
brought  before  the  primate  and  the  bishops  of  London 
and  Lincoln,  almost  all  were  induced  to  abjure ; a 
few  of  the  more  obstinate  forfeited  their  lives.3  Lol- 
lardism, however,  presented  but  little  cause  for  alarm  • 
it  was  the  progress  of  Lutheranism  in  Germany 
which  first  taught  the  bishops  to  tremble  for  the 
security  of  their  church.  Curiosity  led  men  to  peruse 
the  writings  of  the  reformer  and  his  partisans ; the 
perusal  occasionally  made  converts,  and  the  converts 

1 Leg.  51,  56.  Cod.  Theod.  de  Hseret.  Leg.  5,  11,  12,  14,  16. 
Cod.  Just,  de  Haeret. 

2 Calvin  in  refut.  Error.  Mich.  Serveti,  p.  587,  and  in  his  letter 
to  the  duke  of  Somerset.  Merentur  gladio  ultore  coerceri,  quem 
tibi  tradidit  Deus. — Ep.  Calvini  Protect.  Ang.  p.  65. 

3 Foxe,  ii.  19.  Burnet,  i.  27.  I have  not  noticed  the  legend  of 
Hunn,  who  was  found  dead  in  prison.  To  the  account  given  by 
Hall  and  Foxe  may  be  opposed  that  by  Sir  Thomas  More  (Supplic. 
of  Soules,  297 — 299). 

VOL.  V.  I 


CHAP. 

II. 

A-D-  rS39* 


114 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539. 


IS3°- 
May  30. 


laboured  to  diffuse  the  new  light  with  all  the  fervour 
of  proselytisru.  They  were  not  content  to  propagate 
their  doctrine  hy  preaching : the  Bible,  as  the  reader 
has  just  seen,  was  translated  and  printed  beyond  the 
sea : and  books  were  published  which  condemned 
the  creed  of  the  established  church,  ridiculed  the 
ceremonies  of  its  worship,  and  satirized  the  lives  of  its 
ministers.  Henry,  as  defender  of  the  faith,  thought 
himself  bound  in  honour  to  protect  with  the  sword 
those  doctrines  which  he  had  supported  with  his  pen. 
When  the  convocation  condemned  Tyndal  s Bible 
as  an  unfaithful  version,  and  the  other  works  as  teem- 
ing with  errors  and  slander,  the  king  by  proclamation 
forbade  them  to  be  imported,  sold,  or  kept ; and 
ordered  the  chancellor,  justices,  and  inferior  officers 
to  make  oath  that  “they  would  give  their  whole 
“ power  and  diligence  to  destroy  all  errors,  and  would 
“ assist  the  bishops  and  their  commissaries  as  often 
“ as  they  should  be  required/’1 2  Numerous  arrests 
and  abjurations  followed  ; and  four  or  five  unfortunate 
men  who,  having  obtained  a pardon,  reverted  to  their 
former  practice  of  selling  the  prohibited  woiks,  weie, 
on  the  second  conviction,  condemned  to  the  flames.' 
In  1533  the  elevation  of  Cranmer  to  the  archiepis- 
copal  dignity,  the  divorce  of  Catherine,  and  the  sub- 
sequent abolition  of  the  papal  authority,  inspired  the 


1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  727 — 739.  In  consequence  of  this  oath,  Sir 
Thomas  More  frequently  gave  his  aid  in  causes  of  heresy.  Foxe 
from  the  reports  of  the  reformers  accuses  him  of  unnecessary  cruelty , 
and  has  induced  some  modern  writers  to  brand  him  with  the  name 
of  persecutor.  It  is,  however,  but  fair  to  hear  his  defence.  “ Of 
“ al  that  ever  came  into  my  hand  for  heresye,  as  helpe  me  God,  had 

never  any  of  them  any  stripe  or  stroke  given  them,  so  much  as  a 
“ fylyppe  on  the  forehead.” — Apol.  c.  36,  p.  901. 

2 With  Foxe  (ii.  223,  237 — 249)  should  be  read  Sir  Thomas 
More’s  Confutation  of  Tyndal,  344—350. 


PROSECUTION  FOR  HERESY. 


115 


advocates  of  innovation  with  the  hope  of  impunity  ; chap. 
but  experience  taught  them,  to  their  cost,  that  they  a.d.  1530. 
had  as  much  to  fear  now  from  the  head  of  the  church, 
as  they  had  before  from  the  defender  of  the  faith ; 
and  that  the  prelates  of  the  new  learning  were  not 
less  eager  than  those  of  the  old  to  light  the  fagot 
for  the  punishment  of  heresy.  The  first  victims  were 
John  Frith,  who  maintained  that  it  was  not  necessary 
to  believe  or  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
and  Hewet,  a tailor,  who  had  determined  to  believe  juiyik 
and  speak,  to  live  and  die,  with  John  Frith.1  The 
succeeding  years  were  employed  chiefly  in  the  punish- 
ment of  those  who  denied  the  king’s  supremacy,  and 
in  the  contest  with  the  northern  insurgents  ; but 
when  in  1535  a colony  of  German  Anabaptists  landed 
in  England,  they  were  instantly  apprehended ; and 
fourteen,  who  refused  to  recant,  were  condemned  to 
the  flames.  The  fate  of  these  adventurers  did  not 

1 Foxe,  ii.  251,  256.  Hall,  225.  Parson’s  Three  Conversions, 
part  iii.  45 — 59.  Cranmer  gives  the  following  account  of  Frith  and 
Hewet,  in  his  letter  to  Mastyr  Hawkins  (Archasol.  xviii.  p.  81). 

“ One  Fryth  which  was  in  the  Tower  in  pryson,  was  appoynted  by 
“ the  kyng’s  grace  to  be  examyned  befor  me,  my  lorde  of  London, 

“ my  lorde  of  Wynchester,  my  lorde  of  Suffolke,  my  lorde  chan- 
“ celloure,  and  my  lorde  of  Wyltshire,  whose  opynion  was  so  notably 
“ erroneouse,  that  we  culde  not  dispatche  hym  ; but  was  fayne  to 
“ leve  hym  to  the  determynacion  of  his  or  dinary  e,  which  ys  ^he 
“ bishop  of  London.  His  said  opynion  ys  of  such  nature,  that  he 
“ thoughte  it  not  necessary  to  be  beleved  as  an  article  of  our  fay  the, 

“ that  ther  ys  the  very  corporall  presence  of  Christe  within  the  oste 
“and  sacramente  of  the  alter;  and  holdeth  of  this  poynte  moste 
“ after  the  opynion  of  Oecolampadious.  And  suerly  I myself  sent 
u for  hym  hi  or  iiii  tymes  to  perswade  hym  to  leve  that  his  imagi- 
“nacion;  but  for  all  that  we  culd  do  therein,  he  woulde  not  apply 
“to  any  counsaile:  notwythstandyng  he  ys  nowe  at  a fynall  ende 
“with  all  examinacions,  for  my  lorde  of  London  hathe  gyven  sen- 
“ tance,  and  delyvered  hym  to  the  secular  power,  where  he  looketh 
“ every  day  to  go  to  the  fyer.  And  ther  ys  condempned  with 
“ hym  one  Andrewe  a tayloure  of  London  for  the  said  self-same 
“ opynion.” 

I 2 


116 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


Nov.  29. 


1539- 


alarm  their  brethren  abroad ; in  1538  more  mission- 
aries followed ; and  the  king  ordered  Cranmer,  with 
three  other  prelates,  to  call  them  before  him,  to  ad- 
monish them  of  their  errors,  and  to  deliver  the 
refractory  to  the  secular  magistrate.  Four  of  the 
number  abjured  ; one  man  and  a woman  expiated 
their  obstinacy  at  the  stake.1 

But  of  all  the  prosecutions  for  heresy,  none  excited 
greater  interest  than  that  of  Lambert,  alias  Nicholson, 
a clergyman  in  priest’s  orders,  and  schoolmaster  in 
London ; nor  is  it  the  least  remarkable  circumstance 
in  his  story,  that  of  the  three  men  who  brought  him 
to  the  stake,  Taylor,  Barnes,  and  Cranmer,  two  pro- 
fessed, perhaps  even  then,  most  certainly  later,  the 
very  doctrine  for  which  they  prosecuted  their  victim, 
and  all  three  suffered  afterwards  the  same  or  nearly 
the  same  punishment.2  Lambert  had  been  imprisoned 
on  a charge  of  heresy  by  Archbishop  Warham,  and  had 

1 Stowe,  570,  575.  Collier,  ii.  Records,  46.  Wilk.  Con.  iii. 
836.  It  is  remarkable  that  Barnes,  who  was  burnt  soon  afterwards, 
was  one  of  the  commissioners. 

2 It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  the  real  sentiments  of  the  English 
reformers  at  a time  when  the  very  suspicion  of  heterodoxy  might 
have  cost  them  their  lives.  Knowing  the  king’s  attachment  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  they  deemed  it  prudent  to  elude,  and, 
if  possible,  to  suppress  all  controversy  on  that  subject.  Thus 
Cranmer  conjured  Vadianus  to  be  silent;  because  “ dici  non 

11  potest,  quantum  haec  tarn  cruenta  controversia maxime 

“ apud  nos  bene  currenti  verbo  evangelii  obstiterit.” — Strype’s  Cran. 
Ap\.,  p.  47,  anno  1537.  And  Foxe  observes  of  Barnes,  that 
“although  he  did  otherwise  favour  the  gospel,  he  seemed  not 
“ greatly  to  favour  this  cause,  fearing  perad venture  that  it  would 
“ breed  some  let  or  hindrance  among  the  people  to  the  preaching 
“ of  the  gospel.” — Foxe,  ii.  355.  Cranmer’s  promptitude  to  reject 
the  docrine  of  the  real  presence,  when  he  could  do  it  with  safety, 
has  provoked  a suspicion  that  he  did  not  sincerely  believe  it  before  : 
but  Burnet  and  Strype  conceive  that  he  held  the  Lutheran  tenet 
of  consubstantiation  at  this  period ; and  I am  inclined  to  think  the 
same  from  the  tenor  of  the  two  letters  already  quoted, — that  to 
Hawkins,  and  the  other  to  Vadianus. 


TRIAL  OF  LAMBERT. 


117 


escaped  by  the  timely  death  of  that  prelate  ; but  his 
zeal  despised  the  warning ; and,  urged  by  an  uncon- 
querable passion  for  controversy,  he  presented  to 
Dr.  Taylor  a written  paper  containing  eight  reasons 
against  the  belief  of  the  real  presence.  Taylor  consulted 
Barnes  ; Barnes  disclosed  the  matter  to  Cranmer ; and 
Cranmer  summoned  the  schoolmaster  to  answer  for 
his  presumption  in  the  archiepiscopal  court.  The 
particulars  of  his  examination  have  not  been  pre- 
served ; but  he  appealed  from  the  metropolitan  to  the 
head  of  the  church  ; and  the  king  gladly  embraced 
the  opportunity  of  exercising  in  person  the  judicial 
functions  attached  to  his  supremacy.  On  the  ap- 
pointed day  he  took  his  seat  on  the  throne  clothed  in 
robes  of  white  silk ; on  his  right  were  placed  the 
bishops,  the  judges,  and  the  sages  of  the  law ; on  his 
left  the  temporal  peers  and  the  officers  of  the  house- 
hold. The  proceedings  were  opened  by  Sampson, 
bishop  of  Chichester,  who  said  that  though  the  king 
had  abolished  the  papal  authority,  ejected  the  monks 
and  friars,  and  put  down  superstition  and  idolatry,  he 
neither  meant  to  trench  on  the  ancient  doctrines,  nor 
to  suffer  the  faith  of  his  fathers  to  be  insulted  with 
impunity.  Henry  rose,  and  in  a mild  and  conciliatory 
tone,  inquired  of  the  accused  whether  he  were  still 
attached  to  his  former  opinion.  Having  received  an 
answer  in  the  affirmative,  he  made  a long  and  argu- 
mentative harangue  against  the  first  of  the  reasons 
contained  in  the  writing  which  Lambert  had  presented 
to  Ta}dor.  He  was  followed  by  the  bishops,  seven  in 
number,  to  each  of  whom  had  been  allotted  the  re- 
futation of  one  of  the  remaining  objections.  Lambert 
occasionally  attempted  to  answer  his  opponents ; but 
lie  seemed  overpowered  with  terror,  and  gave  no  proof 


CHAP. 

II. 

..D.  1539. 


118 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539. 


Nov.  20. 


of  that  ability  and  learning  for  which  he  had  been 
extolled  by  his  partisans.  Five  hours  were  employed 
by  the  several  disputants,  Henry,  Cranmer,  Gardiner, 
Tunstall,  Stokesley,  Sampson,  and  two  others  ; when 
the  king  asked  him,  “ What  sayest  thou  now,  alter  the 
“ instructions  of  these  learned  men  P Art  thou  satis- 
“ fled  ? Wilt  thou  live  or  die  ?”  The  prisoner  replied, 
that  he  threw  himself  on  the  mercy  of  his  majesty. 
“ Then,”  said  the  king,  “ thou  must  die,  for  I will  not 
“ he  the  patron  of  heretics and  Cromwell,  as  the 
vicar-general,  arose,  and  pronounced  the  usual  judg- 
ment in  cases  of  heresy.1  Lambert  met  his  fate 
with  the  constancy  of  a man  who  was  convinced  that 
he  suffered  for  the  truth ; Henry,  who  had  expected 
to  make  him  a convert,  was  consoled  for  his  disap- 
pointment by  the  praise  which  his  flatterers  lavished 
on  his  zeal,  his  eloquence,  and  his  erudition.2 

But  while  the  king  was  employing  his  authority  in 

1 If  anything  after  this  exhibition  can  surprise  the  reader,  it  will 
be  the  praise  which  is  bestowed  on  it  by  Cromwell  himself  in  a letter 
to  Wyatt,  the  ambassador  in  Germany.  “ The  king’s  majesty  presided 
“at  the  disputation,  process,  and  judgment  of  a miserable  heretic 
“ sacramentary,  who  was  burnt  the  20th  of  November.  It  was 
“ wonderful  to  see  how  princely,  with  how  excellent  gravity,  and 
“inestimable  majesty  his  highness  exercised  there  the  very  office  of 
“ supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England  ; how  benignly  his  grace 
“ essayed  to  convert  the  miserable  man  ; how  strong  and  manifest 
“ reasons  his  highness  alleged  against  him.  I wish  the  princes  and 
“ potentates  of  Christendom  to  have  had  a meet  place  to  have  seen 
“it.” — Collier,  ii.  152. 

2 Godwin  (67)  and  Foxe  (ii.  355 — 358)  have  given  long  accounts 
of  this  trial,  but  I have  deserted  them  where  I could  obtain  better 
authority.  Lambert’s  arguments  were  eight,  not  ten,  as  appears 
from  the  speech  of  Sampson  (not  Day),  bishop  of  Chichester,  pub- 
lished by  Strype  (App.  43).  Henry’s  tone  was  not  intimidating  but 
conciliatory,  if  we  may  believe  Cromwell  in  the  last  note  ; and  the 
prisoner  showed  no  ability,  but  considerable  terror,  according  to  Hall, 
who  was  present  (Hall,  233).  The  story  told  by  Foxe,  of  Cromwell 
sending  for  Lambert  to  his  house,  and  asking  his  pardon,  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  his  letter  to  Wyatt. 


THE  POPE  AGAINST  HENPY. 


119 


support  of  the  ancient  doctrines,  the  court  of  Eome  chap. 
threatened  to  visit  his  past  transgressions  with  the  a.d.  1539. 
severest  punishment  in  its  power.  Paul  had  formerly 
indulged  a hope  that  some  fortunate  event  might  bring 
Henry  back  to  the  communion  of  the  Apostolic  See  ; 
and  that  expectation  was  encouraged  by  a succession 
of  occurrences  which  seemed  to  favour  his  views.  The 
publication  of  “ the  Articles”  showed  that  the  king 
was  not  disposed  to  dissent  from  the  pontiff  on  doc- 
trinal matters : the  death  of  Catherine  and  the  execu- 
tion of  Anne  Boleyn  removed  the  first  and  principal 
cause  of  the  schism ; and  it  was  thought  that  the 
northern  insurrection  would  convince  Henry  of  the 
danger  of  persisting  in  his  apostasy.  But  if  his  passion 
for  Anne  originally  provoked,  his  avarice,  ambition, 
and  resentment  now  conspired  to  perpetuate  the 
quarrel.  Far  from  accepting  offers  of  reconciliation, 
he  appeared  to  seek  opportunities  of  displaying  his 
hostility,  and  by  his  agents  at  different  courts  laboured 
to  withdraw  all  other  sovereigns  from  the  communion 
of  Borne.  Paul  was  perplexed  by  the  opposite 
opinions  of  his  advisers.  Many  condemned  the  sus- 
pension of  the  censures  against  Henry  as  inconsistent 
with  the  honour  and  the  interest  of  the  pontiff,  while 
others  continued  to  object  the  disgrace  and  impolicy 
of  publishing  a sentence  without  the  power  of  carrying 
it  into  execution.  The  great  obstacle  arose  from  the 
difficulty  of  appeasing  the  resentments,  and  reconciling 
the  claims,  of  the  emperor  and  the  king  of  France. 

After  years  of  contention  in  the  cabinet  and  in  the 
field,  neither  had  obtained  the  mastery  over  the  other; 
and  if  Charles  had  defeated  the  attempts  of  his  adver- 
sary on  Milan  and  Naples,  Francis,  by  allying  himself 
with  the  Protestants  of  Germany,  and  calling  to  his 


120 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539. 


1538. 
June  18. 


aid  the  naval  forces  of  Turkey,  had  been  able  to 
paralyze  the  superior  power  of  Charles.  Wearied  at 
length  by  hostilities  without  victory,  and  negotiations 
without  peace,  they  listened  to  the  entreaties  and  ex- 
hortations of  Paul ; a truce  of  ten  years  was  concluded 
under  the  papal  mediation  at  Nice ; and  the  pontiff 
embraced  the  favourable  opportunity  to  sound  the  dis- 
position of  the  two  monarchs  relatively  to  the  conduct 
of  Henry.  From  both  he  received  the  same  answer, 
that  if  lie  would  publish  the  bull,  they  would  send 
ambassadors  to  England  to  protest  against  the  schism; 
would  refuse  to  entertain  the  relations  of  amity  with  a 
prince  who  had  separated  himself  from  the  Catholic 
church  ; and  would  strictly  forbid  all  commercial 
intercourse  between  their  subjects  and  the  English 
merchants.1 

The  substance  of  these  negotiations  was  soon  con- 
veyed to  Henry  by  the  spies  whom  he  maintained  at 
different  courts ; and,  to  disconcert  the  counsels  of  his 
enemies,  he  instructed  his  ambassadors  abroad  to  excite 
by  tempting  offers  the  hopes,  and  inflame  by  artful 
suggestions  the  jealousy,  of  both  Francis  and  Charles  ; 
while  at  home,  that  he  might  be  provided  for  the  event, 
he  ordered  his  navy  to  be  equipped,  the  harbours  to 
be  put  in  a state  of  defence,  and  the  whole  population 
to  be  called  under  arms.2 

Among  those  who  had  accompanied  the  pontiff  to 
Nice,  was  Cardinal  Pole,  whom  both  the  emperor  and 
the  king  had  received  with  marked  distinction,  and 

1 Though  the  cardinals  Farnese  and  Pole  repeatedly  mention  the 
protestation  in  their  letters,  they  do  not  explain  its  object,  because 
it  was  sufficiently  known  to  their  correspondents.  I have,  however, 
collected  it  from  detached  passages,  and  have  no  doubt  that  it  is 
faithfully  represented  above. 

2 Hall,  234. 


EXECUTIONS. 


121 


whom  Henry  believed  to  be  the  original  author  of  the 
present  combination  against  him.  The  cardinal,  in- 
deed, under  the  protection  of  foreign  powers,  might 
defy  the  malice  of  his  persecutor ; but  his  mother,  and 
brothers,  and  relatives,  remained  in  England;  and 
these  were  now  marked  out  for  victims  by  the  jealousy, 
or  the  resentment,  of  the  monarch.  Becket,  usher, 
and  Wrothe,  sewer  of  the  royal  chamber,  proceeded  on 
a mission  to  Cornwall,  ostensibly  to  visit  their  friends, 
in  reality  to  collect  matters  for  accusation  against 
Henry  Courtenay,  marquess  of  Exeter,  and  his  ad- 
herents and  dependants.1  In  a short  time  Sir  Geoffrey 
Pole,  a brother  of  the  cardinal,  was  brought  before  the 
council  and  committed.  His  arrest  was  followed  by 
that  of  another  brother,  the  lord  Montague,  of  their 
mother  the  countess  of  Salisbury,  of  the  marquess  and 
marchioness  of  Exeter,  and  of  Sir  Edward  Neville, 
the  brother  of  Lord  Abergavenny.2  Courtenay  was 
grandson  to  Edward  IV.,  his  mother  being  Catherine, 
daughter  of  that  monarch ; and  the  Poles  were  grand- 
sons to  George,  duke  of  Clarence,  the  brother  of  Ed- 
ward, their  mother  being  Margaret,  the  daughter  of 
Clarence  and  the  countess  of  Salisbury.  On  this  account 
both  families  were  revered  by  the  ancient  adherents  of 
the  house  of  York ; and  had  not  their  loyalty  been 
proof  against  ambition,  they  might  have  taught  the 
king,  during  the  northern  insurrection,  to  tremble  for 
the  security  of  his  crown.3  On  the  last  day  of  the 

1 See  the  instructions  to  Becket  and  Wrothe  in  Arch.  xxii.  24. 
All  doubt  respecting  the  lines  between  the  3rd  and  4th  articles  may 
be  removed  by  reference  to  the  letter  in  Ellis,  ii.  104. 

2 Ellis,  ii.  96. 

3 Maximo  erant  numero,  et  illorum  sanguini  et  nomini  plusquam 
deditissimi.  Quo  tempore  non  solum  illi  in  suo  malo  resistere 
facultatem  maximam  habuissent,  sed  ilium  cum  omnium  commodo  si 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


Nov.  3. 


Dec.  31. 


122 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1538. 


*539- 
Jan.  3. 


Jan.  9. 


March  3. 


March  16, 


year  the  marquess  and  the  lord  Montague  were  ar- 
raigned before  their  peers,  and  three  days  later  the 
commoners  before  juries  of  their  equals,  on  a charge  of 
having  devised  to  maintain,  promote,  and  advance  one 
Reginald  Pole,  late  dean  of  Exeter,  the  king’s  enemy 
beyond  the  seas,  and  to  deprive  the  king  of  his  royal 
state  and  dignity.  The  overt  act  charged  against  the 
marquess  (probably  the  case  of  the  others  might  be 
similar)  was  that  he  had  been  heard  to  say,  “I  like 
“ well  of  the  proceedings  of  Cardinal  Pole  : I like  not 
“ the  proceedings  of  this  realm.  I trust  to  see  a 
“ change  in  the  world.  I trust  once  to  have  a fair 
“ day  on  the  knaves  which  rule  about  the  king.  I 
“trust  to  give  them  a buffet  one  day.”1  It  would 
require  some  ingenuity  to  extract  treason  from  these 
words,  even  if  they  had  been  proved ; but  both  peers 
and  jury  had  only  to  do  the  bidding  of  their  imperious 
master ; and  all  the  accused,  being  found  guilty,  re- 
ceived judgment  of  death.  Geoffrey  Pole  saved  his 
life,  as  it  was  supposed,  by  revealing  the  secrets  of  his 
companions  in  misfortune;2  the  rest  were  beheaded,  as 
was  also  Sir  Nicholas  Carew,  master  of  the  horse,  for 
being  of  counsel  to  the  marquess.  A commission  then 
proceeded  to  Cornwall,  and  two  Cornish  gentlemen, 
Kendall  and  Quintrell,  suffered  death  on  the  charge  of 
having  said,  some  years  before,  that  Exeter  was  the 
heir  apparent,  and  should  be  king,  if  Henry  married 
Anne  Boleyn,  or  it  would  cost  a thousand  lives.3 
These  executions,  particularly  of  noblemen  so  nearly 

voluissent,  oppugnandi,  et  tyrannide  ejiciendi. — Apol.  Poli  ad  Car. 
p.  112. 

1 Howell’s  State  Trials,  iii.  367. 

2 He  was  probably  sent  out  of  the  kingdom ; for  he  obtained  a 

full  pardon  and  permission  to  return  in  the  next  reign. — Burnet, 
iii.  186.  8 Ellis,  ii.  107. 


SECOND  LEGATION  OF  POLE. 


123 


allied  to  Henry  in  blood,  on  a charge  so  ill  defined  and  chap. 
improbable,  excited  a general  horror ; and  the  king,  a.d.  1539. 
in  his  own  vindication,  ordered  a book  to  be  published 
containing  the  proofs  of  their  real  or  pretended 
treason.1 

The  pontiff,  encouraged  by  the  promises  of  Charles  ^538^ 
and  Francis,  to  which  had  now  been  joined  those  of 
the  king  of  the  Romans  and  of  the  king  of  Scotland,  Dec-  2s- 
revoked  the  suspension,  and  ordered  the  publication 
of  the  bull.2  At  the  same  time  Cardinal  Pole  was 
despatched  on  a secret  mission  to  the  Spanish  and 
French  courts ; but  his  arrival  had  been  anticipated 
by  the  English  agents : neither  Charles  nor  Francis 
would  incur  the  hostility  of  Henry  by  being  the  first 
to  declare  himself ; and  both  equally  prohibited  the 
publication  of  the  bull  within  their  dominions.3  To 
the  cardinal  at  Toledo  Charles  replied,  that  there  „ 1539- 

x > # February. 

were  other  matters  which  more  imperiously  required 
his  attention;  the  progress  made  by  the  Turks  in 
Hungary,  and  the  hostile  disposition  of  the  Protestants 
in  Germany ; that  the  latter,  were  he  to  provoke  Henry, 
would  solicit  and  obtain  pecuniary  aid  out  of  those 
treasures  which  the  king  of  England  had  acquired  by 

1 Lord  Herbert  observes  that  he  could  never  discover  theparticular 
offences  of  these  lords ; only  that  the  secretary  in  a letter  to  one  of 
the  ambassadors  says  that  the  accusations  were  great,  and  duly 
proved,  and  that  another  person  says  they  had  relieved  the  cardinal 
with  money. — Herb.  502.  See  one  of  these  letters  in  Ellis,  ii.  109. 

Such  circulars  were  always  sent  on  similar  occasions  in  vindication 
of  the  king’s  conduct.  The  cardinal  himself  maintains  that  if  they 
had  entertained  any  designs  against  the  king,  they  would  have 
shown  them  during  the  insurrection ; and  adds  that  he  had  sought 
in  vain  in  the  king’s  book  for  some  proof  against  them ; — sed  nihil 
tandem  invenire  potui,  nisi  id  quod  liber  tacet  et  quod  ipse  diu 
judicavi,  odium  tyranni  in  virtutem  et  nobilitatem. — Apol.  Poli,  1 18. 

3 Bullar.  Kom.  708. 

3 I cannot  find  any  proof  that  it  was  ever  published  at  all. 


124 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539- 


the  suppression  of  the  monasteries;  that  nevertheless  he 
was  willing  to  fulfil  his  engagements,  to  make  the  pro- 
testation, and  to  interrupt  all  commercial  intercourse, 
but  on  this  condition,  that  the  king  of  France  should 
cordially  join  in  the  undertaking,  and  adopt  at  the  same 
time  the  same  measures.  Foie  returned,  and  from  Avig- 
non sent  a confidential  messenger  to  Francis,  from  whom 
he  received  an  answer  equally  cold  and  unpromising, 
that  he  was  indeed  anxious  to  perform  his  promise  to 
the  pontiff,  but  he  could  not  rely  on  the  mere  word  of 
the  emperor ; that  he  requested  the  legate  not  to  enter 
his  dominions  till  he  could  bring  with  him  some  cer- 
tain document  as  a pledge  of  the  imperial  sincerity ; 
and  that  in  such  case  he  should  be  willing  to  join  his 
forces  with  those  of  Charles  and  the  king  of  Scotland, 
to  attempt  the  conquest  of  England ; and  in  event  of 
success,  to  divide  it  among  the  three  powers,  or  to 
establish  a new  sovereign  in  the  place  of  Henry.1 
The  negotiation  continued  for  some  months  ; Francis 
persisting  in  his  refusal  to  receive  the  legate  without 
the  pledge  demanded  from  Charles,  and  Charles  to 
give  that  pledge  till  the  legate  had  been  received  by 
Francis  as  well  as  by  himself.  The  pontiff,  who  saw 
that  he  was  deluded  by  the  insincerity  of  the  two 
monarclis,  recalled  Pole  to  Rome ; and  the  papal 
court,  abandoning  all  hope  of  succeeding  by  intimi- 
dation, submitted  to  watch  in  silence  the  course  of 
political  events.2 

1 If  this  suggestion  had  been  thrown  out  before,  and  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  Henry,  it  would  account  for  the  late  executions.  He 
could  fear  no  competitor  whom  they  might  set  up,  unless  he  were 
of  the  house  of  York. 

2 For  these  particulars  consult  the  letters  of  Cardinal  Pole  (ii. 
p.  142 — 199,  232):  those  of  Cardinal  Farnese,  from  Toledo  (ibid, 
cclxxxiv.  cclxxxvii.) ; Pole’s  instructions,  cclxxix. ; Beccatelli’s  life 
of  Pole  in  the  same  work  (v.  365)  ; and  Pallavacini’s  account,  drawn 


ARREST  OF  POLES  MOTHER. 


125 


The  part  which  the  cardinal  had  taken  in  the  ne- 
gotiation inflamed  the  hatred  of  Henry.  Judgment  of 
treason  was  pronounced  against  him ; foreign  princes 
were  solicited  to  deliver  him  up ; and  he  was  con- 
stantly beset  with  spies,  and,  as  he  believed,  with 
ruffians  hired  to  take  his  life.  At  home,  to  wound 
him  in  the  most  tender  part,  Henry  ordered  his 
mother,  the  venerable  countess  of  Salisbury,  to  be 
arrested  and  examined  by  the  earl  of  Southampton 
and  the  bishop  of  Ely;  but  she  behaved  with  such 
firmness  of  character,  such  apparent  consciousness  of 
innocence,  as  completely  disconcerted  her  accusers. 
Unable  to  extract  from  her  admissions  sufficient 
matter  for  a criminal  prosecution,  Cromwell  consulted 
the  j udges,  whether  a person  accused  of  treason  might 
not  be  attainted  without  a previous  trial  or  confession. 
They  replied  that  it  would  form  a dangerous  pre- 
cedent ; that  no  inferior  tribunal  would  venture  on  so 
illegal  a proceeding  ; but  that  the  court  of  parliament 
was  supreme,  and  an  attainder  by  parliament  would 
be  good  in  law.1  This  was  sufficient  for  the  king,  who 

from  the  letters  of  different  legates  and  nuncios  (Pallav.  i.  399). 
Pole,  to  excuse  his  conduct  in  this  legation,  assures  Edward  VI. 
that  his  chief  object  was,  to  induce  these  princes  to  employ  all  their 
interest  with  Henry  in  favour  of  religion ; but  acknowledges  that  he 
wished  them,  in  case  the  king  refused  to  listen  to  them  as  friends,  to 
add  menaces,  and  to  interrupt  the  commerce  with  his  subjects.  He 
asserts,  however,  that  he  had  no  desire  to  injure  him  in  reality,  nor 
ever  attempted  to  excite  them  to  make  war  upon  him — hoc  ego  nuti- 
quam  profecto  volui,  neque  cum  illis  egi. — Ep.  ad  Edvard,  tom.  iv. 
p.  337.  He  might,  indeed,  have  hoped  that  these  measures  would 
persuade  or  intimidate  Henry ; but  he  must  also  have  known,  that  it' 
they  had  been  pursued,  they  would  lead  to  discontent  within  the 
kingdom,  and  to  war  without ; and  that  such  results  were  contem- 
plated by  those  who  employed  him.  Che  tutti  d’accordo  levariano 
il  commertio  dTnghilterra,  con  la  qual  via  pensavasi,  che  le  genti,  di 
quel  regno  havessero  a tumultuare. — Becat.  367.  That  there  was 
some  expectation  of  war,  appears  also  from  the  letter  of  Farnese, 
sitpra.  1 Coke,  Inst.  iv.  37. 


CHAP. 

II. 

AD.  1539. 


126 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539. 


June  28. 


Dec.  21. 


1541- 
May  27. 


sought  not  justice  but  revenge;  and  in  a bill  of  at- 
tainder, containing  the  names  of  several  individuals 
who  had  been  condemned  in  the  lower  courts,  were 
introduced  those  of  Pole's  mother  the  countess,  of  his 
nephew  the  son  of  Lord  Montague,1  and  of  Grertrude, 
relict  of  the  marquess  of  Exeter,  though  none  of  them 
had  confessed  any  crime,  or  been  heard  in  their  own 
defence.  With  the  fate  of  the  }roung  man  we  are  not 
acquainted  ; the  marchioness  obtained  a pardon  at  the 
expiration  of  six  months  ;2  and  it  was  hoped  that  the 
king  would  extend  the  same  mercy  to  the  countess. 
She  was  more  than  seventy  years  of  age,  the  nearest 
to  him  in  blood  of  all  his  relations,  and  the  last  in  a 
direct  line  of  the  Plantagenets,  a family  which  had 
swayed  the  English  sceptre  through  so  many  genera- 
tions. Henry  kept  her  in  the  Tower,  probably  as  a 
hostage  for  the  behaviour  of  her  son,  or  her  friends  ; 
but  at  the  end  of  two  years,  on  account  of  some  pro- 
vocation in  which  she  could  have  had  no  share,  ordered 
her  to  be  put  to  death.  In  the  prison  and  on  the 
scaffold  she  maintained  the  dignity  of  her  rank  and 
descent ; and  when  she  was  told  to  lay  her  head  on 
the  block,  “No,”  she  replied,  “my  head  never  com- 
“ mitted  treason ; if  you  will  have  it,  yon  must  take 
“ it  as  you  can.”  She  was  held  down  by  force ; and 
while  the  executioner  performed  his  office,  exclaimed, 
“ Blessed  are  they  who  suffer  persecution  for  righteous- 


1 I observe  that  our  historians  are  ignorant  of  the  attainder,  and 
even  of  the  existence,  of  the  son  of  Lord  Montague.  Yet  Pole  could 
not  have  been  mistaken.  Nec  vero  solam  damnatam  mulierein 
septuagenariam,  qua  nullam,  excepta  filia,  propinquiorem  habet ; et, 
ut  ille  ipse,  qui  earn  damnavit,  saepe  dicere  solebat,  nec  regnum  illud 
sanctiorem  habuit  feminam,  sed  cum  nepote  suo,  filio  fratris  mei 
puero,  spe  reliqua  stirpis  nostrse. — Ep.  Poli,  ii.  197. 

2 Rym.  xiv.  652. 


STRUGGLE  OF  THEOLOGICAL  PARTIES.  127 

“ ness’  sake.”  Her  death,  or  rather  murder,  which  chap. 
seemed  to  have  no  rational  object,  proclaimed  to  the  A-D*  w- 
world  that  the  heart  of  the  king  was  not  less  steeled 
to  the  feelings  of  relationship  and  humanity,  than 
it  was  inaccessible  to  considerations  of  justice  and 
honour ; and  proved  an  awful  admonition  to  his  sub- 
jects, that  nothing  short  of  unlimited  obedience  could 
shield  them  from  the  vengeance  of  their  sovereign.1 

Y.  For  some  time  Cromwell  and  Cranmer  had 
reigned  without  control  in  the  council.  The  duke  of 
Norfolk,  after  the  submission  of  the  insurgents,  had 
retired  to  his  estates  in  the  country  ; and  Gardiner,  on 
his  return  from  an  honourable  exile  of  two  years  in 
foreign  courts,  had  repaired,  without  even  seeing  the 
king,  to  his  bishopric  of  Winchester.2 3  But  the  gene- 
ral understanding  between  the  pontiff  and  the  Catholic 
sovereigns,  and  the  mission  of  Pole  to  the  emperor 
and  the  king  of  France,  had  awakened  serious  appre- 
hensions and  new  projects  in  the  mind  of  Henry.  .He 
determined  to  prove  to  the  world  that  he  was  the 
decided  advocate  of  the  ancient  doctrines  : Gardiner 
was  recalled  to  court,  and  ordered  to  preach  during 
the  Lent  at  St.  Paul's  Cross ; and  the  duke  of  Norfolk 
was  commissioned  to  conduct  the  business  of  the 
crown  as  the  prime  minister,  in  the  house  of  peers. 

As  soon  as  the  parliament  assembled,  a committee  of  May  5. 
spiritual  lords  was  appointed  to  examine  the  diversity 
of  opinions  on  religious  subjects  ; but  on  every  question 
the  members  divided  five  against  four,  the  bishops  of 

1 See  Pole’s  letter  to  the  cardinal  of  Burgos.  He  concludes,  quod 
autem  ad  me  ipsum  attinet,  etiam  honore  auctus  hujus  mortis  genere 
videor,  qui  deinceps  martyris  me  filium  (quod  certe  plus  est  quam 

ullo  regio  genere  ortum  esse)  nunquam  verebor  dicere  (iii.  36,  76). 

3 Le  Grande,  ii.  223. 


128 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap.  York,  Durham,  Carlisle,  Bath,  and  Bangor,  against 
a.d.  i‘54I.  Cromwell  and  the  prelates  of  Canterbury,  Salisbury, 
and  Ely.  The  king  waited  eleven  days  for  their  de- 
cision ; his  patience  was  exhausted ; and  the  duke, 
having  remarked  that  no  result  was  to  be  expected 
from  the  labours  of  the  committee,  proposed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  house  six  questions  respecting  the 
eucharist,  communion  under  one  kind,  private  masses, 
the  celibacy  of  the  priesthood,  auricular  confession* 
and  vows  of  chastity.  The  debate  was  confined  to  the 
spiritual  peers,  while  the  others,  even  Cromwell  and 
Audeley,  observed  a prudent  and  respectful  silence. 
May  i9.  On  the  second  day  the  king  himself  came  down  to  the 
house,  and  joined  in  the  debate  ; to  resist  the  royal 
theologian  required  a degree  of  courage  unusual  in  the 
prelates  of  that  day ; and  Cranmer  and  his  colleagues, 
who  had  hitherto  led  the  opposition,  now,  with  the 
exception  of  the  bishop  of  Salisbury,  owned  themselves 
vanquished  and  convinced  by  the  superiority  of  his 
reasoning  and  learning.1 

1 On  the  testimony  of  Foxe  we  are  told  that  the  archbishop  per- 
sisted in  his  opposition  to  the  last  (Foxe,  ii.  372.  Burnet,  i.  258) ; 
but  this  statement  not  only  seems  irreconcilable  with  the  Journals, 
but  is  contradicted  by  a document  of  far  higher  authority.  We 
know  not  the  name  of  the  writer,  but  he  was  a lord  of  parliament, 
had  been  present  at  the  discussions,  and  thus  describes  the  proceed- 
ings at  the  very  time  when  they  took  place.  “ Notwithstanding  my 
“ lord  of  Canterbury,  my  lord  of  Ely,  my  lord  of  Salisbury,  my  lords 
u of  Worcester,  Rochester,  and  St.  Davyes,  defended  the  contrary  a 
“ long  time,  yet  finally  his  highness  confounded  them  all  with 
“ goodlie  learning.  York,  Durham,  Winchester,  London,  Chichester, 

“ Norwiche,  and  Carlisle,  have  showed  themselves  honest  and  well 
“ learned  men.  We  of  the  temporalty  have  been  all  of  one  opinion ; 

“ and  my  lord  chancellor  (Audeley)  and  my  lord  privy  seal  (Crom- 
“ well)  as  good  as  we  can  devise.  My  lord  of  Canterbury  and  all 
“ his  bishops,  have  given  their  opinions,  and  have  come  in  to  us, 

“ save  Salisbury,  who  yet  continueth  a lewd  fool.” — Cleop.  E.  v. 
p.  128.  It  was  probably  Cranmer’s  consciousness  of  having  on  this 
occasion  sacrificed  his  own  convictions  to  the  will  of  the  king,  and 


THE  SIX  ARTICLES. 


129 


Immediately  after  a short  prorogation  Henry,  flat-  chap. 
tered  with  his  victory,  sent  a message  to  the  Lords,  a.d.  1541. 
congratulating  them  on  the  unanimity  which  had  been  May  3Q 
obtained,  and  recommending  the  enactment  of  penal- 
ties against  those  who  should  presume  to  disturb  it 
by  preaching  the  contrary  doctrines.  Two  separate 
committees  were  appointed,  with  the  same  instructions 
to  each,  to  prepare  a bill  in  conformity  with  the  royal 
suggestion.  One  consisted,  and  it  must  appear  a most 
singular  selection,  of  three  converts  to  the  cause,  the 
prelates  of  Canterbury,  Ely,  and  St.  David’s,  and  the 
other  of  their  warmest  opponents,  the  bishops  of  York, 
Durham,  and  Winchester.  Instead  of  choosing  be- 
tween the  two  bills,  which  they  presented,  the  Lords 
submitted  both  to  the  king,  who  gave  the  preference  June  2 
to  that  which  had  been  drawn  by  the  second  com- 
mittee ;*  and  this,  as  soon  as  the  clergy  in  the  lower 
house  of  convocation  had  reported  their  assent  to  the 
articles,  was  introduced  by  the  chancellor,  passed  by 
the  Lords  and  Commons,  and  received  the  royal  June 5,7- 
assent.2  It  begins  by  reciting  the  six  articles  to  which 


his  knowledge  that  others  had  done  the  same,  which  induced  him  to 
assert  to  the  Devonshire  insurgents  that  “ if  the  king’s  majesty  had 
“ not  come  personally  into  the  parliament  house,  those  laws  had  never 
“ passed”  (Strype,  App.  92)  ; and  to  remind  Gardiner,  that  “ how 
“ that  matter  was  enforced  by  some  persons,  they  new  right  well, 
“ that  were  there  present.” — Defence  against  Gardiner,  286. 

1 It  is  supposed  that  it  had  been  drawn  up  with  the  privity  of  the 
king,  as  there  is  extant  a bill  nearly  similar  in  Henry’s  own  hand. 
It  is  published  by  Wilkins,  iii.  848. 

2 As  a week  intervened  between  the  appointment  of  the  committee 
and  the  introduction  of  the  bill,  Burnet  supposes  that  it  met  with 
great  opposition  in  the  council  (i.  258).  But  this  is  a gratuitous 
supposition.  The  committee  sat  on  Saturday,  May  31.  On 
Monday,  June  2,  their  bills  were  probably  offered  to  the  king ; on 
Tuesday,  Cromwell  submitted  the  six  articles  to  the  consideration  of 
the  clergy  ; on  Thursday  their  answer  was  returned  ; and  on  Satur- 
day the  chancellor  brought  the  bill  into  the  house  of  Lords. — See 

VOL.  V.  K 


130 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  the  parliament  and  convocation  had  agreed  : i . That 
a.d.  1541.  in  the  eucharist  is  really  present  the  natural  body  of 
Christ,  under  the  forms,  and  without  the  substance,  of 
bread  and  wine ; 2.  That  communion,  under  both 

kinds,  is  not  necessary  ad  salutem ; 3.  That  priests 

may  not  marry  by  the  law  of  God  ; 4.  That  vows  of 

chastity  are  to  be  observed ; 5.  That  private  masses 
ought  to  be  retained ; 6.  That  the  use  of  auricular 
confession  is  expedient  and  necessary.  Then  follow 
the  penalties  : 1 . If  any  person  write,  preach,  or  dis- 
pute against  the  first  article,  he  shall  not  be  allowed 
to  abjure,  but  shall  suffer  death  as  a heretic,  and  for- 
feit his  goods  and  chattels  to  the  king;  2.  If  he 
preach  in  any  sermon  or  collation,  or  speak’  openly 
before  the  judges  against  any  one  of  the  other  five,  he 
shall  incur  the  usual  penalties  of  felony;  but  if  he 
only  hold  contrary  opinions,  and  publish  them,  he 
shall  for  the  first  offence  be  imprisoned  at  the  king’s 
pleasure,  and  shall  forfeit  his  lands  during  life,  and  his 
goods  for  ever ; for  the  second  he  shall  suffer  death ; 

3.  The  act  pronounces  the  marriages  of  priests  or  nuns 
of  no  effect,  orders  such  persons  so  married  to  be  sepa- 
rated ; and  makes  it  felony  if  they  cohabit  afterwards ; 

4.  It  subjects  priests,  living  carnally  with  women,  or 
nuns  with  men,  to  imprisonment  and  forfeiture  on  the 
first  conviction,  and  to  death  on  the  second : and 
lastly,  it  enacts  that  persons  contemptuously  refusing 
to  confess  at  the  usual  times,  or  to  receive  the  sacra- 

•Juiy  1.  ment,  shall  for  the  first  offence  be  find  and  imprisoned, 
and  for  the  second  be  adjudged  felons,  and  suffer  the 
punishment  of  felony.1 

Journals,  113,  114,  116;  and  the  acts  of  the  convocation,  Wilk. 
Con.  iii.  845. 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  739 — 741. 


CRANMER  IN  DIFFICULTIES. 


131 


Such  were  the  enactments  of  this  severe  and  barba-  ohap. 
rous  statute.  It  filled  with  terror  the  teachers  and  A-D-  1541- 
advocates  of  the  new  doctrines,  who  saw  from  the 
king’s  temper  that  their  only  security  was  silence  and 
submission  to  the  royal  will.  Latimer  and  Shaxton, 
the  bishops  of  Worcester  and  Salisbury,  who  by  the 
intemperance  of  their  language  had  given  offence, 
resigned  spontaneously  or  at  the  king’s  requisition, 
their  respective  sees.1  But  no  one  had  greater  cause 
of  alarm  than  Cranmer.  The  reader  will  recollect 
that  before  his  promotion  to  the  archiepiscopal  dignity, 
he  had  married  a kinswoman  of  Osiander,  in  Germany. 

At  a convenient  time  she  followed  him  to  England, 
where  she  bore  him  several  children.  ITe  was  too 
prudent  to  acknowledge  her  publicly  : but  the  secret 
quickly  transpired  ; and  many  priests,  emboldened  by 
the  impunity,  imitated  the  example  of  the  metro- 
politan. As  the  canons,  which  imposed  celibacy  on 
the  priesthood,  had  never  been  abrogated,  the  head  of 
the  church  thought  it  his  duty  to  notice  these  trans- 
gressions, and  by  a circular  letter  ordered  the  bishops 
to  make  inquiries  in  their  dioceses,  and  either  to  im- 
prison the  offenders,  or  to  certify  their  names  to  the 
council.2  Two  years  later  appeared  a proclamation, 
ordering  all  priests,  “who  had  attempted  marriages 
that  were  openly  known,”  to  be  deprived  of  their  ^ 
beneiices,  and  reputed  as  laymen ; and  threatening  Nov- l6- 

1 Godwin,  Annals,  p.  70.  De  Praesul.  Ang.  i.  353;  ii.  49.  The 
French  ambassador  says  that  both  refused  their  assent.  Et  deux 
eveques,  principaux  auteurs  des  . . . . et  doctrines  nouvelles,  pour 
n'avoir  voulu  souscrire  a edits,  ont  este  privez  de  leurs  evechez. — Le 
Grand,  ii.  199.  Latimer  asserted  in  1546  that  “ he  left  his  bishoprick 
u beeng  borne  in  hande  by  the  Lord  Crumwelthat  it  was  his  Majestes 

‘ pleasure  he  shuld  resigne  it,  which  his  Majesty  aftre  denyed,  and 
pitied  his  condicion.” — State  Pap.  i.  849. 

2 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  826. 

K 2 


132 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  that  all  who  should  marry  after  that  notice  should 
a.d.  1538.  suffer  punishment  and  imprisonment  at  his  grace’s 
pleasure.1 

Though  neither  of  these  orders  reached  the  arch- 
bishop, they  convinced  him  that  he  stood  on  very 
slippery  ground.  To  save  himself,  he  had  recourse  to 
every  expedient  which  his  ingenuity  could  supply. 
First,  with  becoming  humility  he  submitted  to  the 
superior  judgment  of  Henry  such  reasons  against  the 
law  of  clerical  celibacy  as  had  occurred  to  his  mind ; 
he  then  suggested  the  expediency  of  a royal  declara- 
tion imposing  silence  on  the  subject,  and  leaving  every 
man  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience ; and  at 
length  he  boldly  proposed,  that  the  lawfulness  of  the 
marriage  of  priests  should  be  debated  in  the  univer- 
sities before  impartial  judges,  on  the  condition  that,  if 
judgment  were  given  against  his  opinion,  its  advocates 
should  suffer  death  ; if  in  its  favour,  the  canonical 
prohibition  should  be  no  longer  enforced.  To  these 
solicitations  of  Cranmer  was  added  the  reasoning  of  his 
friend  Melancthon,  who,  in  a long  and  declamatory 
epistle,  undertook  the  difficult  task  of  convincing  the 
obstinacy  of  the  king.  But  neither  argument,  nor 
solicitation,  nor  artifice,  could  divert  Henry  from  his 
purpose.  The  celibacy  of  the  priesthood  was  made  one 
of  the  six  articles  ; and  Cranmer  saw  with  dismay  that 
his  marriage  was  reputed  void  in  law,  and  that  subse- 
quent cohabitation  would  subject  him  to  the  penalty  of 
IS39*  death.  In  haste  he  despatched  his  children  with  their 
mother  to  her  friends  in  Grermany,  and  wrote  to  the 
king  an  apology  for  his  presumption  in  having  opposed 
the  opinion  of  his  majesty.  Henry,  appeased  by  his 

1 Strype’s  Cranmer,  App.  No.  viii. 

2 Burnet,  i.  Records,  Nos.  iv.  vi. 


ACTS  OF  PARLIAMENT.  133 

submission,  returned  a gracious  and  consoling  answer 
by  the  duke  of  Norfolk  and  Cromwell,  the  vicar- 
general.1 

Cromwell,  who  had  been  created  a baron  in  153b, 
still  continued  to  possess  considerable  influence  in  the 
royal  councils.  His  services  were  still  wanted  to  per- 
fect the  great  work  of  the  dissolution  of  monasteries ; 
and  by  professing  himself  an  early  convert  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  six  articles,  and  labouring  to  procure 
proselytes  among  the  bishops,2  he  had  avoided  the 
displeasure  of  his  sovereign.  It  has  been  already 
noticed  that  before  the  prorogation  of  parliament,  all 
the  property,  real  or  moveable,  of  the  religious  houses 
“ which  had  been  already  or  might  be  hereafter  dis- 
“ solved,  suppressed,  or  surrendered,  or  had  or  might 
“ by  any  other  means  come  into  the  hands  of  the  king,” 
was  vested  in  Henry  and  his  heirs  for  ever,  with 
authority  to  endow  new  bishoprics  out  of  it  according 
to  his  or  their  pleasure.  This  act  affected  the  interests 
of  only  one  class  of  subjects ; but  to  it  was  added 
another,  which  lay  prostrate  at  the  foot  of  the  throne 
the  liberties  of  the  whole  nation.  It  declared  that 
the  king  for  the  time  being  should  possess  the  right 
of  issuing,  with  the  advice  of  his  council,  proclamations 
which  ought  to  have  the  effect  of  acts  of  parliament ; 
adjudged  all  transgressors  of  such  proclamations  to 
suffer  the  imprisonment,  and  pay  the  fines  expressed  in 
them ; and  made  it  high  treason  to  leave  the  realm  in 
order  to  escape  the  penalty.3  It  was  not  without  con- 

1 Antiq.  Brit.  333. 

2 Constantyne’s  Memoir,  Archssol.  xxiii.  63. 

3 St.  31  Hen.  VIII.  8.  Thus  Cromwell  nearly  accomplished  his 
favourite  doctrine,  which  he  had  formerl}r  inculcated  to  Pole,  and 
frequently  maintained  before  Henry.  “ The  Lord  Cromwell,”  says 
Gardiner,  in  one  of  his  letters,  “ had  once  put  in  the  king’s  head  to 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1539. 


134 


HENRY  VIII. 


char  siderable  difficulty  that  this  act  was  carried  through  the 
a. d ^1539.  two  houses  ; but  both  the  men  of  the  old  and  of  the 
— new  learning,  jealous  of  each  other,  concurred  in  every 
measure  which  they  knew  to  be  pleasing  to  the  sove- 
reign ; and  the  consent  of  the  other  members  was 
obtained  by  the  introduction  of  a nugatory  exception 
in  favour  of  statutes  then  in  being,  and  saving  the 
inheritances,  offices,  liberties,  goods,  chattels,  and  lives 
of  the  king’s  subjects.1  At  the  same  time  Henry 
celebrated  his  triumph  over  the  court  of  Rome  by  a 
naval  exhibition  on  the  Thames.  Two  gallies,.  deco- 
rated with  the  royal,  the  other  with  the  pontifical 
arms,  met  on  the  river;  a stubborn  conflict  ensued;  at 
length  the  royalists  boarded  their  antagonist;  and  the 
figures  of  the  pope  and  the  different  cardinals  were 
successively  thrown  into  the  water,  amidst  the  ac- 
clamations of  the  king,  of  his  court,  and  of  the 
citizens.2 

“ take  upon  him  to  have  his  will  and  pleasure  regarded  for  a law ; 
“ and  thereupon  i was  called  for  at  Hampton  Court.  And  as  he  was 
“ very  stout,  Come  on,  my  lord  of  Winchester,  quoth  he,  answer  the 
“ king  here,  but  speak  plainly  and  directly,  and  shrink  not,  man. 
“ Is  not  that,  quoth  he,  that  pleaseth  the  king,  a law  ? Have  ye  not 
11  that  in  the  civil  laws,  quod  principi  placuit,  &c.  ? I stood  still, 
“ and  wondered  in  my  mind  to  what  conclusion  this  would  tend. 
11  The  king  saw  me  musing,  and  with  gentle  earnestness  said,  Answer 
“ him  whether  it  be  so  or  no.  I would  not  answer  the  Lord  Crom- 
“ well,  but  delivered  my  speech  to  the  king,  and  told  him,  that  I 
11  had  read  of  kings  that  had  their  will  always  received  for  law ; but 
11  that  the  form  of  his  reign  to  make  the  law  his  will  was  more  sure, 
“ and  quiet : and  by  this  form  of  government  ye  be  established,  quoth 
11 1,  and  it  is  agreeable  with  the  nature  of  your  people.  If  you  begin 
“ a new  manner  of  policy,  how  it  may  frame  no  man  can  tell.  The 
“king  turned  his  back,  and  left  the  matter.” — Foxe,  ii.  65. 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  726.  Marillac,  in  his  account  of  it  to  the 
king  of  France,  says,  Laquelle  chose,  Sire,  a este  accorde  avec  grandes 
difficultez,  qui  ont  esti  debattues  long  terns  en  leurs  assemblies,  et 
avec  peu  de  contentment,  par  ce  qu’on  voit  de  ceux  qui  y ont  preti 
leur  consentment. — Apud  Le  Grand,  ii.  206. 

2 It  was,  says  Marillac,  un  jeu  de  pauvre  grace,  et  de  moindre 
invention. — Ibid.  205. 


ANNE  OF  CLEVES. 


135 


Notwithstanding  these  appearances,  Cromwell,  when 
he  considered  his  real  situation,  discovered  abundant 
cause  for  alarm.  Henry  in  public  had  affected  to 
treat  him  always  with  neglect,  sometimes  with  insult ; 
but  these  affronts  he  had  borne  with  patience,  knowing 
that  they  proceeded  not  from  displeasure  on  the  part 
of  the  king,  but  from  unwillingness  to  have  it  thought 
that  he  stood  in  need  of  the  services  of  the  minister. 
Now,  however,  it  was  plain  that  the  ancient  doctrines 
had  assumed  a decided  ascendancy  in  the  royal  mind ; 
the  statute  of  the  Six  Articles  had  been  enacted  con- 
trary to  his  wish,  and,  as  far  as  he  dared  disclose  him- 
self, contrary  to  his  advice;  his  friends  were  disgraced 
and  dispirited  ; his  enemies  active  in  pursuit  of  the 
king’s  favour ; and  it  was  useless  for  him  to  seek  sup- 
port from  the  ancient  nobility,  who  had  long  borne  his 
superior  elevation  with  real  though  dissembled  im- 
patience. In  these  circumstances,  he  turned  his  eyes 
towards  the  Lutheran  princes  of  Germany,  with  whom 
he  had  long  maintained  a friendly  though  clandestine 
correspondence ; but  the  plan  which  he  adopted  to 
retrieve  his  credit  served  only,  from  the  capricious 
disposition  of  the  king,  to  accelerate  his  downfal. 

Henry  had  been  a widower  more  than  two  years. 
In  1537,  Jane  Seymour,  his  third  queen,  bore  him 
a male  child,  afterwards  Edward  VI.,  and  in  less  than 
a fortnight  expired.  His  grief  for  her  loss,  if  he  were 
capable  of  feeling  such  grief,  seemed  to  be  absorbed 
in  joy  for  the  birth  of  a son  f and  in  the  very  next 

1 To  Francis,  who  had  congratulated  him  on  the  birth  of  a son, 
he  announced  her  death  in  the  following  unfeeling  manner  : “II  a 
“ sembl6  bon  a la  divine  providence,  de  mesler  cette  ma  grande  joye 
“ avec  l’amaritude  du  trespas  de  celle  qui  m’avoit  apporte  ce  bon- 
“ heur.  De  la  main  de  votre  bon  frere,  Henry.” — Le  Grand,  ii. 

185. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.  I).  1539. 


Oct.  12. 


Oct.  24. 


136 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.-D.  1539. 


1538. 

January. 


September. 


month  he  solicited  the  hand  of  Marie,  the  duchess 
dowager  of  Longueville.  He  was  enamoured  with 
her  gentleness,  her  mental  acquirements,  and,  above  all, 
with  the  largeness  of  her  person ; not  that  he  had  seen 
her  himself,  but  that  he  gave  full  credit  to  a confi- 
dential agent,  who  had  artfully  insinuated  himself  into 
her  family.  Marie,  however,  preferred  a more  youth- 
ful lover,  James,  king  of  Scotland ; but  Henry  would 
admit  of  no  refusal,  nor  believe  the  king  of  France, 
who  assured  him  that  she  was  contracted  to  James. 
During  five  months  he  persecuted  her  with  his  suit, 
and  when  she  sailed  from  the  shores  of  France  to  join 
her  husband,  betrayed  his  chagrin  by  refusing  the 
permission  which  she  asked,  to  land  at  Dover,  and 
travel  through  his  dominions.  A daughter  of  Yen- 
dome  was  then  offered ; but  Henry  deemed  it  beneath 
him  to  take  for  a wife  a woman  who  had  been  pre- 
viously rejected  by  his  nephew  of  Scotland ; and  he 
was  prevented  from  marrying  one  of  the  two  sisters 
of  Marie,  because  Francis  would  not  gratify  his  caprice 
by  exhibiting  them  before  him  at  Calais,  and  allowing 
him  to  make  his  choice.1  These  attempts  of  the 
English  king  to  procure  a wife  from  France  alarmed 
the  jealousy  of  the  emperor,  who,  to  divert  him  from 
this  purpose,  proposed  to  him  to  marry  Christina,  relict 
of  Sforza,  late  duke  of  Milan,  and  to  give  his  daughter 
Mary  to  Don  Louis,  infant  of  Portugal.  The  sug- 
gestion was  received  with  pleasure.  Ambassadors 
hastened  to  Spain,  but  could  not  prevail  on  Charles 
to  settle  Milan  on  the  infant,  a condition  required 
by  Henry.  Other  ambassadors  repaired  to  the  Low 

1 Disant  qu’il  semble  qu’on  veuille  par  dela  faire  des  femmes 
comme  de  leurs  guilledins,  qui  est  en  assembler  une  bonne  quantite 
et  les  faire  trotter  pour  prendre  celuy  qui  ira  le  plus  a l’aise. — 
Lettre  a M.  de  Castillon,  apud  Le  Grand,  iii.  638. 


THE  KING’S  DISAPPOINTMENT. 


137 


Countries,  where  Christina  resided  with  Anne,  queen  chap. 
of  Hungary,  and  regent  of  the  Netherlands.  The  a.d.  1538. 
duchess  was  “a  goodly  personage, of  stature  higher  than  0“6 
“ either  of  the  envoys,  a very  good  woman’s  face,  and 
“ competently  fayre,  very  well  favored,  and  a lyttle 
“ browne.”  But  the  regent  was  so  slow  and  dilatory 
in  the  negotiation,  that  Henry  put  an  end  to  it  ab- 
ruptly, because  he  suspected  the  offer  to  have  been  a 
mere  feint ; and  aware,  “ that  time  slippeth  and  flyetli 
<c  marvellously  away,”  he  would  not  defeat  his  object 
of  procuring,  if  possible,  “more  increase  of  issue  to  the 
“ assurance  of  his  succession.”1  Under  these  repeated 
disappointments,  he  was  the  more  ready  to  listen  to 
the  suggestions  of  Cromwell,  who  proposed  to  him 
Anne,  sister  of  William,  the  reigning  duke  of  Cleves, 
and  one  of  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany.  The 
English  envoys  reported  to  the  king  that  Anne  was 
both  tall  and  portl}r,  qualifications  which  he  deemed 
essential  in  his  wife ; of  her  beauty  he  was  satisfied  by 
a flattering  portrait  from  the  pencil  of  Hans  Holbein  f 1539- 
and  his  assent  to  their  union  was  readily  obtained  by  a 
splendid  embassy  from  the  German  princes.  On  the 
day  on  which  Anne  was  expected  to  land  at  Dover,  Dec.  31. 
the  king  rode  in  disguise  to  meet  her  at  Rochester, 
that  he  might  steal  a first  glance,  and,  as  he  expressed 
it,  “might  nourish  love.”  His  disappointment  was 
evident.  She  was  indeed  tall,  and  large  as  his  heart  154°* 
could  wish ; but  her  features,  though  regular,  were 
coarse,  her  manners  ungraceful,  her  figure  ill-propor- 
tioned. He  shrunk  back,  and  took  time  to  compose 
himself  before  he  was  announced.  As  she  bent  her 

1 Chron.  Catal.  204 — 212. 

2 He  painted  both  Anne  and  her  sister  Emily,  that  the  king  might 
make  his  choice. — Herb.  221.  Ellis,  ii.  122. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


June  6. 


138  HENRY  VIII. 

knee,  he  raised  her  up,  and  saluted  her ; but  he  could 
not  prevail  upon  himself  to  converse  with  her,  or  to 
deliver  the  presents  which  he  had  brought  for  her ; 
and  after  a few  minutes,  retiring  to  his  chamber,  sent 
for  the  lords  who  had  accompanied  her  from  Dover.1 
The  next  morning  he  hastened  back  to  Greenwich  ; a 
council  was  summoned ; and  Cromwell  received  orders 
to  devise  some  expedient  to  interrupt  the  marriage. 
Two  days  passed  in  fruitless  consultation ; Anne  was 
required  to  swear  that  she  was  not  pre-engaged  to  any 
other  person  ; her  conductors  were  subjected  to  re- 
peated interrogatories;  and  the  king  at  length,  unpro- 
vided with  any  reasonable  excuse,  and  afraid  of  adding 
the  German  princes  to  his  other  enemies,  after  the 
passionate  exclamation,  “ Is  there  no  other  remedy, 
“ but  that  I must  needs  against  my  will  put  my  neck 
“ into  the  noose  ?”  was  persuaded  by  Cromwell  to 
submit  to  the  ceremony.  They  cohabited  for  some 
months;  but  Anne  had  none  of  those  arts  or  qualifica- 
tions which  might  have  subdued  the  antipathy  of  her 
husband.  He  spoke  only  English  or  French ; she 
knew  no  other  language  than  German.  He  was  passion- 
ately fond  of  music  ; she  could  neither  play  nor  sing. 
He  wished  his  consort  to  excel  in  the  different  amuse- 
ments of  his  court ; she  possessed  no  other  acquire- 
ments than  to  read,  and  write,  and  sew  with  her 
needle.  His  aversion  increased;  he  found  fault  with 
her  person ; persuaded  himself  that  she  was  of  a 
perverse  and  sullen  disposition ; and  openly  lamented 

1 “ He  was  marvaillously  astonied  and  abashed.”  He  sent  the 
presents  the  next  morning,  viz.  a partlet,  sable  skins  to  wear  round 
the  neck,  and  a muffley  furred,  with  as  cold  a message  as  might  be. 
— Strype,  i.  307.  On  the  ring  which  he  gave  her  was  inscribed  the 
following  allusion  to  the  fate  of  Anne  Boleyn  : “ God  send  me  well 
“ to  kepe.” — Loseley  MSS. 


CROMWELL'S  SPEECH. 


139 


liis  fate  in  being  yoked  for  life  with  so  disagreeable  a 
companion.1 

This  unfortunate  marriage  had  already  shaken  the 
credit  of  Cromwell ; his  fall  was  hastened  by  a theolo- 
gical quarrel  between  Dr.  Barnes,  one  of  his  depen- 
dants, and  Gardiner,  bishop  of  Winchester.  In  a 
sermon  at  St.  Pauls  Cross,  the  prelate  had  severely 
censured  the  presumption  of  those  preachers  who,  in 
opposition  to  the  established  creed,  inculcated  the 
Lutheran  tenet  of  justification  by  faith  without  works. 
A fortnight  later,  Dr.  Barnes,  an  ardent  admirer  of 
Luther,  boldly  defended  the  condemned  doctrine  from 
the  same  pulpit,  and  indulged  in  a scurrilous  invective 
against  the  bishop.  The  king  summoned  the  preacher 
before  himself  and  a commission  of  divines,  discussed 
with  him  several  points  of  controverted  doctrine,  pre- 
vailed on  him  to  sign  a recantation,  and  enjoined  him 
to  preach  on  the  same  subject  a second  time  on  the 
first  Sunday  after  Easter.  Barnes  affected  to  obey. 
He  read  his  recantation  before  the  audience,  publicly 
asked  pardon  of  Gardiner,  and  then,  proceeding  with 
his  sermon,  maintained  in  still  stronger  terms  the  very 
doctrine  which  he  had  recanted.  Irritated  by  this 
insult,  the  king  committed  him  to  the  Tower,  with 
Garret  and  Jerome,  two  preachers  who,  placed  in 
similar  circumstances,  had  thought  proper  to  follow 
his  example.2 

It  was  generally  believed  that  Henry’s  resentment 
against  Barnes  would  beget  suspicions  of  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  minister,  by  whom  Barnes  had  hitherto  been 

1 See  the  depositions  of  the  king  and  Cromwell  in  Burnet,  i.  Rec. 
193 — 197  ; and  of  several  lords  in  Strype,  i.  Ree.  307 — 315;  and 
the  letter  of  Wotton,  Ellis,  ii.  122. 

2 Foxe,  ii.  441 — 443.  Hall,  241.  Burnet,  i.  296.  Rec.  iii. 
No.  xxii. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


Feb.  14. 


Feb.  28. 


April  4. 


140 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.  IX  1540. 


April  12. 


protected ; and  so  confidently  did  Cromwell’s  enemies 
anticipate  his  disgrace,  that  his  two  principal  offices, 
those  of  vicar-general  and  keeper  of  the  privy  seal, 
were  already,  according  to  report,  shared  between 
Tunstall.  bishop  of  Durham,  and  Clarke,  bishop  of 
Bath,  prelates  of  the  old  learning,  who  had  lately  been 
introduced  into  the  council.1  The  king,  however, 
subdued  or  dissembled  his  suspicions ; and,  to  the 
surprise  of  the  public,  Cromwell,  at  the  opening  of 
parliament,  took  his  usual  seat  in  the  house  of  Lords, 
and  delivered  a royal  message.  It  was,  he  said,  with 
sorrow  and  displeasure  that  his  majesty  beheld  the 
religious  dissensions  which  divided  the  nation ; that  on 
the  one  hand  presumption  and  liberty  of  the  flesh,  on 
the  other  attachment  to  ancient  errors  and  superstitions? 
had  generated  two  factions,  which  reciprocally  branded 
each  other  with  the  opprobrious  names  of  papists  and 
heretics ; that  both  abused  the  indulgence  which  of 
his  great  goodness  the  king  had  granted  them,  of  read- 
ing the  Scriptures  in  their  native  tongue,  these  to  in- 
troduce error,  those  to  uphold  superstition ; and  that 
to  remedy  such  evils,  his  majesty  had  appointed  two 
committees  of  prelates  and  doctors,  one  to  set  forth  a 
pure  and  sincere  declaration  of  doctrine,  the  other  to 
determine  what  ceremonies  ought  to  be  retained,  what 
to  he  abolished ; had  strictly  commanded  the  officers 
of  the  crown,  with  the  judges  and  magistrates,  to 
put  in  execution  the  laws  already  made  respecting 
religion ; and  now  required  the  aid  of  the  two  houses 
to  enact  penalties  against  those  who  should  treat  with 
irreverence,  or  explain  rashly  and  erroneously,  the 
holy  Scriptures.2 

The  vicar-general  now  seemed  to  monopolize  the 
1 Le  Grand,  i.  285.  2 Journals,  129. 


ARREST  OF  CROMWELL. 


141 


royal  favour.  He  had  obtained  a grant  of  thirty 
manors  belonging  to  suppressed  monasteries ; the  title 
of  Earl  of  Essex  was  revived  in  his  favour  ;l  and  the 
office  of  lord  chamberlain  was  added  to  his  other  ap- 
pointments. He  continued,  as  usual,  to  conduct  in 
parliament  the  business  of  the  crown.  He  introduced 
two  bills,  vesting  the  property  of  the  Knights  Hos- 
pitallers in  the  king,  and  settling  a competent  jointure 
on  the  queen  ; and  he  procured  from  the  laity  the 
almost  unprecedented  subsidy  of  four  tenths  and  fif- 
teenths, besides  ten  per  cent,  on  their  income  from 
lands ; and  five  per  cent,  on  their  goods ; and  from 
the  clergy  a grant  of  two  tenths,  and  twenty  per  cent, 
on  their  incomes  for  two  years.2  So  far  indeed  was 
he  from  apprehending  the  fate  which  awaited  him, 
that  he  committed  to  the  Tower  the  bishop  of  Chi- 
chester and  Hr.  Wilson,  on  a charge  of  having  relieved 
prisoners  confined  for  refusing  the  oath  of  supremacy, 
and  threatened  with  the  royal  displeasure  his  chief 
opponents,  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  and  the  bishops  of 
Durham,  Winchester,  and  Bath.3 

But  Henry  in  the  meantime  had  ascertained  that 
Barnes  was  the  confidential  agent  of  Cromwell ; that 
he  had  been  employed  in  secret  missions  to  Germany ; 
and  that  he  had  been  the  real  negotiator  of  the  late 
marriage  with  Anne  of  Cleves.  Hence  the  king  easily 
persuaded  himself  that  the  insolence  of  the  agent 
arose  from  confidence  in  the  protection  of  the  patron  ; 
that  his  vicar-general,  instead  of  watching  over  the 

1 The  last  earl,  Henry  Bourchier,  had  been  killed  by  a fall  from 
his  horse,  March  12,  1540. — Stowe,  579. 

2 Wilk.  Con.  850,  863.  Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  812. 

3 Le  Grand,  i.  286.  See  also  a letter  from  the  bishop  of  Chi- 
chester in  the  Tower  to  Cranmer,  dated  June  7,  in  Strype,  i.  Rec. 
257- 


chap. 

11. 

A.D.  1540. 
April  17. 

April  18. 

May  29. 


142 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


June  10. 


purity  of  the  faith,  had  been  the  fautor  of  heretics ; 
and  that  his  own  domestic  happiness  had  been  sacri- 
ficed by  his  minister  to  the  interests  of  a religious 
faction.  He  now  recollected  that  when  he,  proposed 
to  send  Anne  back  to  her  brother,  he  had  been  dis- 
suaded by  Cromwell;  and  he,  moreover,  concluded,  from 
the  sudden  change  in  her  behaviour,  that  his  intention 
of  procuring  a divorce  had  been  betrayed  to  her  by 
the  same  minister.1  The  earl  seems  to  have  had  no 
suspicion  of  his  approaching  fate.  On  the  morning  of 
the  tenth  of  June  he  attended  in  his  place  in  the 
house  of  Lords ; at  three  the  same  afternoon  he  was 
arrested  at  the  council-board  on  a charge  of  high 
treason.2  The  offences  of  which  he  was  afterwards 
accused  may  be  ranged  under  three  heads.  As  min- 
ister, it  was  said  that  he  had  received  bribes,  and 
encroached  on  the  royal  authority  by  issuing  commis- 
sions, discharging  prisoners,  pardoning  convicts,  and 
granting  licenses  for  the  exportation  of  prohibited 
merchandise ; as  vicar-general  he  was  charged  with 
having  betrayed  his  duty  by  not  only  holding  heretical 
opinions  himself,  but  also  by  protecting  heretical 
preachers,  and  promoting  the  circulation  of  heretical 
books  ; and  lastly,  to  fix  on  him  the  guilt  of  treason, 
it  was  alleged,  that  on  one  particular  occasion  he  had 
expressed  a resolution  to  fight  against  the  king,  if  it 
were  necessary,  in  support  of  his  religious  opinions.3 


1 Cromwell  acknowledged  that  he  had  advised  the  change  in  her 
conduct ; but  denied  that  he  had  done  so  after  the  king  had  confided 
his  secret  to  him. — See  his  letter  in  Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  161. 

2 Journals,  143. 

3 Burnet,  Rec.  iii.  No.  16.  Mount  was  instructed  to  inform  the 
German  princes  that  Cromwell  had  threatened  to  strike  a dagger 
into  the  heart  of  the  man  who  should  oppose  the  Reformation ; 
which  was  interpreted  to  mean  the  king. — Burnet,  iii.  162. 


KING  DIVORCED  FROM  ANNE. 


143 


He  was  confronted,  at  his  request,  with  his  accusers,  in 
presence  of  the  royal  commissioners,  but  was  refused 
the  benefit  of  a public  trial  before  his  peers.1  The 
court  preferred  to  proceed  against  him  by  bill  of 
attainder ; a most  iniquitous  measure,  but  of  which  he 
had  no  right  to  complain,  as  he  had  been  the  first  to 
employ  it  against  others.  Cranmer  alone  ventured  to 
interpose  in  his  behalf ; but  his  letter  to  the  king  was 
penned  with  his  usual  timidity  and  caution,  rather 
enumerating  the  past  services  of  Cromwell,  than  at- 
tempting to  vindicate  him  from  the  charge  on  which 
he  had  been  arrested.2  Five  days  later  the  archbishop 
deemed  it  prudent  to  go  along  with  the  stream,  and 
on  the  second  and  third  readings  gave  his  vote  in 
favour  of  the  attainder.  The  bill  passed  through  the 
house  of  Lords,  and  probably  through  the  house  of 
Commons,  without  a dissentient  voice.3 

The  disgrace  of  Cromwell  was  quickly  followed  by 
the  divorce  of  the  queen.  On  the  first  communication 
of  Henry's  intention  she  fainted  to  the  ground ; but 
recovering  herself,  was  persuaded  by  degrees  to  submit 
the  question  to  the  decision  of  the  clergy,  and  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  new  title  of  the  king’s  adopted  sister. 
In  the  council  several  consultations  were  held,  and 
different  resolutions  were  taken.  At  first  great  re- 
liance had  been  placed  on  a precontract  of  marriage 

1 See  the  duke  of  Norfolk’s  letter,  Burnet,  iii.  Records,  74.  It  is 
remarkable  that  Cromwell  was  the  first  who  perished  in  consequence 
of  his  own  practice.  He  had  first  introduced  condemnation  by  act 
of  attainder,  without  trial,  in  the  case  of  the  countess  of  Salisbury ; 
but  she  was  still  alive,  and  was  not  executed  till  the  year  after  the 
execution  of  Cromwell.  In  the  same  letter  the  duke  tells  us  that 
Catherine  Howard,  though  his  niece,  was  his  great  enemy ; an  asser- 
tion which  does  not  confirm  the  supposition  of  Hume,  that  he  em- 
ployed her  to  ruin  Cromwell  by  her  insinuations  to  Henry. 

2 Herbert,  519. 

3 Journals,  146.  The  act  is  published  by  Burnet,  i.  Rec.  iii.  xvi. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


June  19. 


144 


HENKY  VIII. 


chap,  between  the  princess  and  the  marquess  of  Lorraine 
a.d.  1540.  but  when  it  was  considered  that  both  parties  were 
children  at  the  time,  and  had  never  since  ratified  the 
act  of  their  parents,  this  plea  was  abandoned ; and  it 
was  determined  to  rest  the  king’s  case  on  the  misre- 
presentation which  had  been  made  to  him  as  to  her 
person,  and  the  want  of  consent  on  his  part  both  at 
the  celebration,  and  ever  since  the  celebration  of  the 
July  6.  marriage.1  In  pursuance  of  this  plan  the  chancellor, 
the  archbishop,  and  four  other  peers  successively  ad- 
dressed the  house  of  Lords.  It  had  been  their  lot, 
they  said,  to  be  instrumental  in  negotiating  the  late 
marriage ; it  was  now  their  duty  to  state  that  from 
more  recent  information  they  doubted  its  validity.  In 
such  a case,  where  the  succession  to  the  crown  was 
concerned,  too  great  security  could  not  be  obtained ; 
wherefore  they  moved  that  all  the  particulars  should, 
with  the  royal  permission,  be  laid  before  the  clergy  in 
convocation,  and  their  decision  as  to  the  validity  or 
invalidity  of  the  marriage  should  be  required.  A de- 
putation was  next  requested  and  obtained  from  the 
lower  house ; and  the  temporal  lords  and  commoners 
proceeding  to  the  palace,  humbly  solicited  the  king’s 
permission  to  submit  to  his  consideration  a subject  of 
great  delicacy  and  importance.  Henry  assented,  being 
aware  that  they  would  propose  to  him  nothing  which 
was  unreasonable  or  unjust.  Having  heard  their 
petition  from  the  mouth  of  the  chancellor,  he  replied, 
that  it  was  indeed  an  important  question  ; but  that  he 
could  refuse  nothing  to  the  estates  of  the  realm ; that 
the  clergy  were  learned  and  pious,  and  would,  he  had 


1 Dr.  Clarke  had  been  sent  to  open  the  business  to  the  duke  of 
Cleves;  and  on  his  journey  received  no  fewer  than  three  sets  of  in- 
structions, each  differing  from  the  other. — See  Herbert,  520,  521. 


SUBMISSION  OF  ANNE. 


145 


no  doubt,  come  to  an  upright  decision;  and  that,  as 
far  as  regarded  himself,  he  was  ready  to  answer  any 
question  which  might  he  put  to  him,  for  he  had  no 
other  object  in  view  but  the  glory  of  God,  the  welfare 
of  the  realm,  and  the  triumph  of  truth.1 

By  the  convocation  the  inquiry  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  consisting  of  the  two  archbishops,  of  four 
bishops,  and  eight  divines,  who  either  found  the  ma- 
terials ready  to  their  hands,  or  were  urged  to  ex- 
traordinary diligence  by  the  known  wish  of  the 
monarch.  To  receive  depositions,'2  to  examine  wit- 
nesses, to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  case,  to  form  their 
report,  and  to  obtain  the  approbation  of  the  whole 
body,  was  the  work  of  but  two  short  days.  Not 
a voice  was  heard  in  favour  of  the  marriage ; it 
was  unanimously  pronounced  void  on  the  following 
grounds  : — 

1.  There  was  no  certainty  that  the  alleged  pre- 
contract between  Anne  and  the  marquess  of  Lorraine 
had  been  revoked  in  due  form  of  law;  and  in  con- 
sequence the  validity  of  her  subsequent  marriage  with 
Henry  was,  and  the  legitimacy  of  her  issue  by  him 
would  be,  doubtful. 

2.  The  king  had  required  that  this  difficulty  should 
be  removed  previously  to  his  marriage.  It  might  be 
considered  as  an  indispensable  condition ; whence  it 
was  inferred  that  as  the  condition  had  failed,  the 
marriage,  which  depended  on  that  condition,  must  be 
void. 

1 Lords’  Journals,  p.  153.  It  is  amusing  that  the  whole  of  this 
farce  is  described,  just  as  it  was  afterwards  acted,  in  a letter  from 
the  council  to  Clarke,  dated  July  3,  three  days  before  it  took  place, 
— Herb.  521. 

2 They  have  been  published  partly  by  Burnet,  i.  Rec.  193,  197, 
and  partly  by  Strype,  i.  Rec.  307 — 315. 

VOL.  Y.  L 


CHAR 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


July  7. 


July  9. 


146 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


July  13. 


July  11. 


3.  It  was  contended  that,  if  Henry  had  selected 
Anne  for  his  wife,  he  had  been  deceived  by  exagge- 
rated accounts  of  her  beauty ; if  he  had  solemnized  his 
nuptials  with  her,  he  had  been  compelled  by  reasons 
of  state  : hut  he  had  never  given  that  real  consent 
which  was  necessary  to  impart  force  to  the  contract, 
either  by  any  internal  act  of  the  will  during  the  cere- 
mony, or  after  the  ceremony  by  the  consummation  of 
the  marriage.  It  is  not  possible  that  such  arguments 
could  satisfy  the  reason  of  the  members.  From  the 
benefit  of  the  two  first  Henry  had  excluded  himself 
by  his  own  act  in  proceeding  to  the  celebration  of  the 
ceremony ; and  the  last,  were  it  admitted  in  its  full 
extent,  would  at  once  deprive  of  force  every  treaty 
between  sovereigns.  But  the  clergy  in  convocation, 
like  the  lords  and  commons  in  parliament,  were  the 
obsequious  slaves  of  their  master.  The  first  decided 
in  obedience  to  his  will;  the  second  passed  an  act 
confirming  that  decision ; and  then  assimilating  the 
marriage  of  Henry  with  Anne  to  his  former  marriages 
with  his  first  and  second  queens,  they  subjected  to  the 
penalties  of  treason  every  man  who  should  by  writing, 
imprinting,  or  any  exterior  act,  word  or  deed,  directly 
or  indirectly,  accept,  believe,  or  judge,  that  it  was  law- 
ful and  valid.1  The  German  princess — she  had  neither 
friend  nor  adviser — submitted  without  complaint  to 
her  lot.  Bjr  Henry’s  command  she  subscribed  a letter 
to  him,  in  which  she  was  made  to  admit  the  non-con- 
summation of  the  marriage,  and  to  acquiesce  in  the 
judgment  of  the  convocation.  But  the  letter  was 
written  in  English ; and  it  was  possible  that  subse- 
quently, as  Henry  expressed  it,  “ she  might  play  the 
“ woman/’  revoking  her  assent,  and  pleading  in  justi- 
1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  850 — 855.  Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  781. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH. 


147 


fication  her  ignorance  of  the  language.  She  was, 
therefore,  assailed  with  presents  from  the  king,  and 
with  advice  from  his  commissioners ; a version  of  her 
former  letter  in  German,  and  a letter  to  her  brother 
written  in  the  same  language,  and  containing  the  same 
admissions,  were  laid  before  her ; and  she  was  induced 
to  copy  both  with  her  own  hand,  and  to  forward  them 
to  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed.1  He  then  de- 
manded back  the  ring  which  he  had  given  to  her  at 
their  marriage,  and  on  the  receipt  of  it  professed  him- 
self satisfied.  They  now  called  each  other  brother  and 
sister,  and  a yearly  income  of  three  thousand  pounds, 
with  the  palace  of  Richmond  for  her  residence,  amply 
indemnified  the  degraded  queen  for  the  loss  of  a 
capricious  and  tyrannical  husband.2 

The  session  was  now  hastening  to  a close,  and  little 
progress  had  been  made  by  the  committees,  appointed 
at  the  recommendation  of  Cromwell,  to  frame  a de- 
claration of  doctrine  for  the  belief,  and  an  order  of 
ceremonies  for  the  worship,  of  the  English  church. 
To  give  the  authority  of  parliament  to  their  subse- 
quent labours,  it  was  enacted  that  such  ordinances  as 
they  or  the  whole  clergy  of  England  should  afterwards 
publish  with  the  advice  and  approbation  of  the  king, 
should  be  fully  believed,  obeyed,  and  performed,  under 
idle  penalties  to  be  therein  expressed.  At  the  same 

1 State  Pap.  i.  635 — 646.  Henry  attached  great  importance  to 
the  German  letters.  “ Oneless,”  he  writes  to  the  duke  of  Suffolk, 
“ these  letters  be  obteyned,  all  shall  remay n uncerteyn,  upon  a 
il  woman’s  promise  that  she  wilbe  no  woman ; the  accomplissement 
u whereof  in  her  behalf  is  as  difficile  in  the  refrayning  of  a woman’s 
u will  upon  occasion,  as  in  chaunging  of  her  womanyssn  nature, 
“ which  is  impossible.” — Ibid.  640. 

2 Rym.  xiv.  710.  Her  income  was  made  to  depend  on  her  re- 
maining within  the  realm. — Ibid.  She  died  at  Chelsea,  July  16, 

1 5 57.  See  her  will,  in  which  she  professes  to  die  a Catholic,  in 
Excerp.  Hist.  295. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


July  16. 


148 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  time  the  rigour  of  the  statute  of  the  Six  Articles  was 
a.d.  1540.  mitigated  in  that  clause  which  regarded  the  incon- 
tinence  of  priests  or  nuns  ; and  forfeiture  of  lands 
and  goods  was  substituted  in  place  of  the  penalty  of 
death.1 

From  the  moment  of  his  arrest,  Cromwell  had 
laboured  without  ceasing  to  save  his  life.  He  denied 
with  the  strongest  asseverations  that  he  was  a traitor, 
or  a sacramentary,  or  a heretic ; he  admitted  that  he 
had  occasionally  transgressed  the  limits  of  his  au- 
thority, hut  pleaded  in  excuse  the  number  of  the 
offices  which  he  held,  and  the  impropriety  of  troubling 
at  every  moment  the  royal  ear;  he  descended  with 
seeming  cheerfulness  to  every  submission,  every  dis- 
closure which  was  required  of  him  ; he  painted  in 
striking  colours  his  forlorn  and  miserable  condition, 
and  solicited  for  mercy  in  terms  the  most  pathetic, 
and  perhaps  more  abject  than  became  his  character.2 
Unfortunately,  among  his  papers  had  been  found  his 
clandestine  correspondence  with  the  princes  of  Ger- 
juiy  24.  many  ;3  the  king  would  listen  to  no  plea  in  favour  of 
a man  who  had  betrayed  his  confidence  to  strangers ; 
and  on  the  fourth  day  after  the  bill  of  attainder  had 
July  28.  received  the  royal  assent  he  was  led  to  execution.  On 
the  scaffold  he  asked  pardon  of  his  sovereign,  and 
admitted  that  he  had  been  seduced  by  the  spirit  of 
error ; but  protested  that  he  had  returned  to  the  truth, 
and  should  die  in  the  profession  of  the  Catholic  faith, 

; St.  32  Henry  VIII.  10,  26. 

a See  his  letters  to  Henry,  Burnet,  i.  Rec.  193;  iii.  Rec.  16 1. 
The  reader  will  be  astonished  at  the  number  of  oaths,  &c.  with 
which  he  maintains  his  innocence.  “ May  God  confound  him ; may 
“ the  vengeance  of  God  light  upon  him  ; may  all  the  devils  in  hell 
“ confound  him,”  and  similar  imprecations  continually  recur. 

3 Marillac,  apud  Le  Grand,  ii.  215. 


OTHER  EXECUTIONS. 


149 


meaning  probably  that  faith  which  was  now  established 
by  law.1  If  a tear  were  shed  at  his  death,  it  was  in 
secret,  and  by  the  preachers  who  had  been  sheltered 
under  his  protection.  The  nobility  rejoiced  to  be 
freed  from  the  control  of  a man,  who  by  cunning  and 
servility  had  raised  himself  from  the  shop  of  a fuller  to 
the  highest  seat  in  the  house  of  Lords ; the  friends  of 
the  church  congratulated  themselves  on  the  fall  of  its 
most  dangerous  enemy ; and  the  whole  nation  con- 
sidered his  blood  as  an  atonement  for  the  late  enor- 
mous and  impolitic  tax,  imposed  at  a time  when  the 
king  had  incurred  no  extraordinary  expense,  and  when 
the  treasury  was  filled,  or  supposed  to  be  filled,  with 
the  spoils  of  the  suppressed  monasteries. 

Two  days  later,  the  citizens  were  summoned  to  be- 
hold an  execution  of  a more  singular  description.  By 
law  the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  were  now  placed 
on  an  equal  footing  in  respect  to  capital  punishment. 
If  to  admit  the  papal  supremacy  was  treason,  to  reject 
the  papal  creed  was  heresy.  The  one  could  be  ex- 
piated only  by  the  halter  and  the  knife  ; the  other  led 
the  offender  to  the  stake  and  the  fagot.  It  was  in 
vain  that  the  German  reformers  pleaded  in  favour  of 
their  English  brethren;  and  that  Melancthon,  in  a 
long  letter,  presumed  to  question  the  royal  infallibility. 
The  king  continued  to  hold  with  a steady  hand  the 
balance  between  the  two  parties.  During  the  parlia- 
ment, Powel,  Abel,  and  Featherstone,  had  been  at- 

1 Hall,  242.  Stowe,  580.  His  speech,  like  others  on  similar 
occasions,  left  his  guilt  or  innocence  as  problematical  as  before.  He 
came  to  die,  not  to  clear  himself.  He  thanked  God  for  having 
brought  him  to  that  death  for  his  offences ; for  he  had  always  been 
a sinner.  He  had  offended  his  prince,  for  which  he  asked  forgive- 
ness, and  God,  of  whom  he  prayed  all  present  to  ask  forgiveness  for 
him. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


150 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


July  30. 


August  8. 


tainted  for  denying  the  supremacy ; Barnes,  Garret, 
and  Jerome,  for  maintaining  heterodox  opinions.1  They 
were  now  coupled,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  on  the 
same  hurdles ; drawn  together  from  the  Tower  to 
Smithfield,  and  while  the  former  were  hanged  and 
quartered  as  traitors,  the  latter  were  consumed  in  'the 
flames  as  heretics.  Still,  if  we  consider  the  persecut- 
ing policy  of  the  age,  and  the  sanguinary  temper  of 
the  king,  we  shall  perhaps  find  that  from  this  period 
fewer  persons  suffered  than  might  have  been  expected. 
The  commissions,  indeed,  which  Cromwell  had  men- 
tioned at  the  opening  of  parliament,  were  issued,  in- 
quests were  taken,  and  informations  laid ; but  terror 
had  taught  men  to  suppress  their  real  sentiments 
and  of  those  whose  imprudence  brought  them  under 
suspicion,  the  least  guilty  were  dismissed  on  their 
recognizances  for  each  other ; and  most  of  the  rest 
embraced  the  benefit  of  abjuration  granted  by  the 
law.2 

Henry  did  not  long  remain  a widower  after  his 
divorce  from  Anne  of  Cleves.  The  Lords  humbly 
besought  him,  as  he  tendered  the  welfare  of  his 
people,  to  venture  on  a fifth  marriage,  in  the  hope 
that  God  would  bless  him  with  more  numerous  issue ; 
and  within  a month  Catherine,  daughter  to  the  late 
Lord  Edmund  Howard,  and  niece  to  the  duke  of 

1 These  three  did  not  maintain  any  doctrines  against  the  six 
articles,  but  (if  we  may  judge  from  their  recantation),  that  the  man 
who  has  been  justified,  cannot  fall  from  grace ; that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  pardon  offences ; that  good, 
works  are  not  profitable  to  salvation,  and  that  the  laws  are  not  to  be 
obeyed  for  conscience’  sake. — See  the  recantation,  Burnet  i.  Rec.  iii. 
No.  xxii. 

2 During  the  remainder  of  Henry’s  reign,  Foxe  reckons  ten 
Protestants,  Dodd  fourteen  Catholics,  who  suffered,  after  those 
mentioned  above. 


MARRIES  CATHERINE  HOWARD. 


151 


Norfolk,  appeared  at  court  with  the  title  of  queen. 
Catherine  had  been  educated  under  the  care  of  the 
dowager  duchess  of  Norfolk,  and  first  attracted  the 
royal  notice  at  a dinner  given  by  the  bishop  of  Win- 
chester. She  possessed  nothing  of  that  port  and 
dignity  which  Henry  had  hitherto  required.  But  her 
figure,  though  small,  was  regular ; her  manner  easy 
and  graceful,  and  “ by  a notable  appearance  of  honour, 
“ cleanness,  and  maidenly  behaviour  she  won  the  king’s 
“ heart.”1  For  more  than  twelve  months  he  lavished 
on  her  tokens  of  his  affection  ; but  the  events,  to 
which  she  owed  her  elevation,  had  rendered  the  re- 
formers her  enemies,  and  a discovery,  which  they 
made  during  her  absence  with  the  king  in  his  progress 
as  far  as  York,  enabled  them  to  recover  their  former 
ascendancy,  and  deprived  the  young  queen  of  her 
influence  and  her  life.* 

A female,  who  had  been  one  of  her  companions 
under  her  grandmothers  roof,  but  was  now  married  in 
Essex,  had  stated  to  Lascelles,  her  brother,  that  to  her 
knowledge,  Catherine  had  admitted  to  her  bed,  “ on 
“ an  hundred  nights,”  a gentleman  of  the  name  of  Dere- 
liam,  at  that  time  page  to  the  duchess.  Lascelles — at 
whose  instigation,  or  through  what  motive  is  un- 
known— carried  this  most  extraordinary  tale  to  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer.  Cranmer  consulted  his  friends  the 
chancellor  and  the  lord  Hertford ; and  all  three 
determined  to  secure  the  person  of  Lascelles,  and 

1 Letter  of  Council  in  Herb.  532.  She  is  called  parvissima  puella 
(Burnet,  iii.  147).  What  then  was  the  age  of  this  very  little  girl? 

2 I am  aware  that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  of  any  plot ; but,  if 
it  be  considered  with  whom  the  following  inquiry  originated,  and  with 
what  art  it  was  conducted,  it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  suspicion  of  a 
political  intrigue,  having  for  its  object  to  effect  the  downfal  of  the 
dominant  party,  by  procuring,  not  indeed  the  death,  but  the  divorce 
of  the  queen. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


152 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  to  keep  the  matter  secret  till  the  return  of  the  royal 
a.d.  1540.  party.  Henry  and  Catherine  reached  Hampton  Court 
0c7~2  against  the  feast  of  All  Saints  ; on  that  day  “ the  king 
Nov.  1.  “ received  his  maker,  and  gave  him  most  hearty  thanks 

“ for  the  good  life  he  led  and  trusted  to  lead  with  his 
Nov.  2.  “ wife  ;’n  on  the  next,  whilst  he  was  at  mass,  the 

archbishop  delivered  into  his  hands  a paper  containing 
the  information  obtained  in  his  absence.  He  read  it 
with  feelings  of  pain  and  distrust ; an  inquiry  into  its 
truth  or  falsehood  was  immediately  ordered ; first 
Lascelles  was  examined ; then  his  sister  in  the  country; 
next  Dereham  himself ; and  afterwards  several  other 
persons.  All  this  while  Catherine  was  kept  in  igno- 
rance of  the  danger  which  threatened  her ; but  one 
Nov.  10.  morning  the  king  left  the  court ; and  the  council, 
waiting  on  her  in  a body,  informed  her  of  the  charge 
which  had  been  made  against  her.  She  denied  it  in 
their  presence  with  loud  protestations  of  innocence ; 
but  on  their  departure  fell  into  fits,  and  appeared 
frantic  through  grief  and  terror.  To  soothe  her  mind, 
the  archbishop  brought  her  an  assurance  of  mercy  from 
Henry ; and,  repeating  his  visit  in  the  evening,  when 
she  was  more  tranquil,  artfully  drew  from  her  a pro- 
mise to  reply  to  his  questions  “ faithfully  and  truly, 
“ as  she  would  answer  at  the  day  of  judgment,  and  by 
“ the  promise  which  she  made  at  her  baptism,  and  by 
“ the  sacrament  which  she  received  on  All  Hallows 
“ day  last  past.”  Under  this  solemn  adjuration  she 
admitted  that,  notwithstanding  the  precautions  taken 
by  the  duchess,  Dereham  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
coming  at  night  or  early  in  the  morning  to  the  apart- 
ment allotted  to  the  females  ; that  he  brought  with  him 
wine  and  fruit  for  their  entertainment ; and  he  often 
1 Letter  of  Council,  Herb.  532. 


DEREHAM  AND  CULPEPPER. 


153 


behaved  with  great  freedom  and  rudeness,  and  that  on 
three  occasions  he  had  offered  some  violence  to  her 
person.  This  was  the  result  of  two  examinations,  in 
which  Cranmer  laboured  to  procure  evidence  of  a pre- 
contract between  Catherine  and  Dereham.  Had  he 
succeeded,  she  might  have  saved  her  life  by  submit- 
ting to  a divorce ; but  the  unfortunate  queen  deprived 
herself  of  this  benefit  by  constantly  maintaining  that 
no  promise  had  been  made,  and  that  “ al  thatDerame 
“ dyd  unto  her,  was  of  his  importune  forcement  and  in 
*'  a maner  violence,  rather  than  of  her  fre  consent  and 
“wil.”1 

The  following  day  the  judges  and  counsellors  as- 
sembled in  the  Star-chamber,  where  the  chancellor 
announced  to  them  the  presumed  guilt  of  the  queen, 
read  in  support  of  the  charge  select  passages  from  the 
evidence  already  procured,  and  intimated,  in  addition, 
that  more  important  disclosures  were  daily  expected.2 
At  Hampton  Court  the  same  course  was  followed  in 
the  presence  of  all  persons  of  “ gentle  birth,”  male  and 
female,  who  had  been  retained  in  her  service.  Cathe- 
rine herself  was  removed  to  Sion  House,  where  two 
apartments  were  reserved  exclusively  for  her  accom- 
modation, and  orders  were  given  that  she  should  be 
treated  with  the  respect  due  to  her  rank.  In  anticipa- 
tion of  her  attainder,  the  king  had  already  taken  pos- 
session ot  all  her  personal  property ; but  he  was 
graciously  pleased  to  allow  her  six  changes  of  apparel, 

1 See  the  archbishop’s  letter  to  the  king  in  State  Pap.  1.  691  ; 
her  confession  in  Burnet,  App.  lxxi.,  and  the  letter  in  Herb.  532. 

2 He  suppressed  all  the  passages  which  might  be  construed  in 
favour  of  pre-contract,  and  that  because  u they  might  serve  for  her 
u defence.” — State  Pap.  692,  694.  It  was  now  the  king’s  intention 
to  proceed  against  her  for  adultery,  which  was  incompatible  with  a 
pre-contract. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


NOV.  12. 


Nov.  13. 


154 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


Nov.  30. 


Dec.  10. 


and  six  French  hoods  with  edgings  of  goldsmiths' 
work,  but  without  pearl  or  diamond.1 

If  there  was  no  pre-contract  between  Catherine  and 
Dereham,  nothing  but  her  death  could  dissolve  the 
marriage  between  her  and  the  king.  Hence  it  became 
necessary  to  prove  her  guilty  of  some  capital  offence  ; 
and  with  this  view  a rigorous  inquiry  was  set  on  foot 
respecting  her  whole  conduct  since  she  became  queen. 
It  was  now  discovered  that  not  only  had  she  admitted 
Dereham  to  her  presence,  but  had  employed  him  to 
perform  for  her  the  office  of  secretary ; and  that  at 
Lincoln,  during  the  progress,  she  had  allowed  Cul- 
pepper, a maternal  relation  and  gentleman  of  the 
privy  chamber,  to  remain  in  company  with  her  and 
Lady  Rochford  from  eleven  at  night  till  two  in  the 
morning.  The  judges  were  consulted,  who  replied, 
that  considering  the  persons  implicated,  these  facts,  if 
proved,  formed  a satisfactory  presumption  that  adultery 
had  been  committed.  On  this  and  no  better  proof, 
the  two  unfortunate  gentlemen  were  tried,  and  found 
guilty  of  high  treason.  Their  lives  were  spared  for 
ten  days,  with  the  hope  of  extorting  from  them  addi- 
tional information  respecting  the  guilt  of  the  queen. 
But  they  gave  none,  probably  had  none  to  give. 
Dereham  was  hanged  and  quartered  ; Culpepper,  out 
of  regard  to  his  family,  was  beheaded.2 

But  these  were  not  the  only  victims.  The  king’s 
resentment  was  extended  to  all  those  individuals  who 

1 State  Papers,  695. 

2 Ibid.  701.  It  has  been  sometimes  said  that  both  confessed  the 
adultery.  But  of  that  there  is  no  proof ; and  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that,  if  it  were  so,  their  confession  would  have  been  distinctly  stated 
in  the  bill  of  attainder,  as  the  best  evidence  of  their  crime.  That 
it  is  false,  as  far  as  regards  Dereham,  will  be  plain  from  the  next 
note. 


CHARGES  AGAINST  CATHERINE. 


155 


had  been,  or  might  have  been,  privy  to  the  intimacy  chap. 
between  Catherine  and  Dereham  in  the  house  of  the  a.d.  i54o. 
duchess.  He  argued  that,  contrary  to  their  duty,  they 
had  allowed  their  sovereign  to  marry  a woman  guilty 
of  incontinence  ; they  had  thus  exposed  his  honour  to 
disgrace,  his  life  to  danger  from  the  intercourse  which 
might  afterwards  take  place  between  her  and  her 
paramour ; and  had  therefore,  by  their  silence,  com- 
mitted an  offence  amounting  at  least  to  misprision  of 
treason.  On  this  charge  the  duchess  herself,  with 
her  daughter  the  countess  of  Bridgewater,1  the  lord  ^ 9>  io> 
William  Howard  and  his  wife,  and  nine  other  persons 
of  inferior  rank,  in  the  service  of  the  duchess,  were 
committed  to  the  Tower ; where  the  royal  commis- 
sioners laboured  by  frequent  and  separate  examina- 
tions, by  menaces  and  persuasion,  and,  in  one  instance 
at  least,  by  the  application  of  torture,  to  draw  from 
them  the  admission  that  they  had  been  privy  to 
Catherine’s  incontinence  themselves,  and  the  charge 
of  such  privity  in  their  companions.  The  duchess  and 
her  daughter,  who  persisted  in  the  denial  of  any  know- 
ledge or  even  suspicion  of  misconduct  in  their  young 
relative,  were  reserved,  in  punishment  of  their  ob- 
stinacy, to  be  dealt  with  by  the  justice  of  parliament; 
the  commoners  were  brought  to  trial  on  the  same  day  ; Dec.  22. 
among  whom  all  the  females  confessed  the  offence 


1 The  duchess  had  taken  some  papers  out  of  Dereham’s  trunks  in 
her  house.  Henry  was  so  irritated,  that  he  charged  her  with  trea- 
son ; the  judges  dissented  : he  replied  that  there  was  as  much  reason 
to  convict  her  of  treason  as  there  had  been  to  convict  Dereham. 
‘‘  They  cannot  say  that  they  have  any  learning  to  maynteign  that 
u they  have  a better  ground  to  make  Deram’s  case  treason,  and  to 
u presume  that  his  comyng  agayn  to  the  queene’s  servyce  was  to  an 
“ ill  intent  of  the  renovacion  of  his  former  noughtie  lif,  then  they 
have  in  this  case  to  presume  that  the  brekyng  of  the  colfres  was  to 
“ th’intent  to  concede  letters  of  treason.” — State  Pap.  700. 


156 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1540. 


I54i- 
Jan.  21. 


Jan.  28. 


with  many  tears  and  supplications  for  mercy ; the  lord 
William  boldly  put  himself  011  his  country,  but  was 
induced  by  the  court  to  withdraw  his  plea  before  the 
conclusion  ; his  fellow-prisoner,  Damport,  refusing  to 
follow  his  example,  was  tried  and  found  guilty.  All 
were  condemned  to  forfeiture  and  perpetual  imprison- 
ment.1 

For  some  time  we  have  lost  sight  of  Catherine ; 
at  the  beginning  of  the  year  we  meet  with  her  again 
at  Sion  House,  with  a parliament  sitting,  and  a sweep- 
ing bill  of  attainder  before  it,  including  both  the  queen 
and  all  her  companions  in  misfortune.  If  we  consider 
that  the  attainder  against  her  could  be  sustained  only 
on  the  ground  of  adultery,  we  shall  not  be  surprised 
that  the  Lords  sought  to  learn  from  her  what  she  could 
say  to  that  particular  charge.  For  this  purpose  they 
appointed  a committee  to  wait  on  her  with  Henry’s 
permission,  and  to  exhort  her  to  speak  the  truth  with- 
out fear  or  reservation ; to  remember  that  the  king 
was  merciful,  as  the  laws  were  just ; and  to  be  per- 
suaded that  the  establishment  of  her  innocence  would 

1 State  Pap.  726.  “We  have  finished  our  worke  this  daye  moche 
“ to  his  majestes  honor  that  is,  we  have  procured  the  conviction  of 
all  the  accused.  From  these  letters  it  appears  that  the  moment  an 
individual  was  committed,  the  king’s  officers  discharged  his  house- 
hold, and  seized  his  clothes,  furniture,  money,  jewels,  and  cattle,  that 
they  might  be  secured  for  the  crown  in  the  event  of  his  attainder  ; 
that  no  time  was  lost  in  bringing  him  to  trial,  because,  if  he  died 
before  conviction,  the  king  would  lose  the  forfeiture;  that  in  the 
present  case  the  accused  were  indicted  almost  immediately,  “ that 
“ the  parliament  might  have  better  grownde  to  confyske  theyr 
“ gooddes,  if  any  of  them  should  chawnce  before  theyre  atteyndour  to 
“ die”  (ibid.  705),  and  that  the  proofs  brought  at  the  trial  consisted 
of  copies  of  confessions  made  by  others,  and  the  testimonies  of  the 
commissioners  themselves.  Thus  at  the  trials  of  the  lord  William 
and  Damport,  the  witnesses  examined  were  not  persons  originally 
acquainted  with  the. facts,  but  the  master  of  the  Rolls,  the  attorney 
and  solicitor  general,  and  three  of  the  king’s  counsel,  who  had  taken 
the  examinations. 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


157 


afford  joy,  and  that  even  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
would  afford  relief  to  the  mind  of  her  husband.  But 
of  this  the  privy  council  disapproved ; another  plan 
was  proposed ; and  after  some  delay  the  bill  was  read 
again,  hastened  through  the  two  houses,  and  brought 
to  the  Lords  by  the  chancellor  signed  by  the  king,  with 
the  great  seal  appended  to  it.  Whilst  the  officer 
proceeded  to  summon  the  attendance  of  the  Commons, 
the  duke  of  Suffolk  with  some  others  reported,  that 
they  had  waited  on  the  queen,  who  “ acknowledged 
“ her  offence  against  God,  the  king,  and  the  nation/’ 
expressed  a hope  that  her  faults  might  not  be  visited 
on  her  brothers  and  family,  and  begged  as  a last  fayour 
that  she  might  divide  a part  of  her  clothes  among  her 
maids.1  By  this  time  the  Commons  had  arrived,  and 
the  royal  assent  was  immediately  read  in  due  form. 
The  act  attainted  of  treason  the  queen,  Dereham  and 
Culpepper  as  her  paramours,  and  Lady  Bochford  as 
aider  and  abettor ; and  of  misprision  of  treason  both 
all  those  who  had  been  convicted  of  concealment  in 
court,  and  also  the  duchess  of  Norfolk  and  the  countess 
of  Bridgewater,  though  no  legal  proceedings  whatso- 
ever had  been  taken  against  them.2 

The  tragedy  was  now  drawing  to  a close.  Catherine 
had  already  been  conducted  to  the  Tower ; two  days 

1 The  reader  will  observe  that  in  this  confession,  which  is  entered 
on  the  Journals  (i.  176),  there  is  no  direct  mention  of  adultery,  the 
only  treason  that  Catherine  was  charged  with  having  committed. 
Can  we  believe  that,  if  she  could  have  been  brought  to  confess  it, 
Suffolk  would  not  have  stated  it  broadly  and  unequivocally  ? Again, 
why  was  this  statement  withheld  till  the  house  had  passed  the  bill ; 
and,  when  it  was  made,  why  did  not  Suffolk  wait  for  the  presence  of 
the  Commons  ? It  is  also  singular  that  the  statement  of  the  earl  of 
Southampton,  who  had  accompanied  Suffolk  to  the  queen,  is  omitted. 
The  clerk  has  begun  the  entry  with  these  words,  “ hoc  etiam  ad- 
“jiciens;”  but,  unaccountably,  adds  nothing. 

2 Journals,  i.  168,  171,  172,  176.  Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  854. 


CHAP 

II. 

• U i54i- 


Feb.  6. 


Feb.  11. 


15S 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

•D.  1541. 
Feb.  13. 


after  the  passing  of  the  act,  and  six  months  after  her 
marriage,  she  was  led  to  execution,  together  with  her 
companion,  the  Lady  Roehford.  They  appeared  on 
the  scaffold  calm  and  resigned,  bidding  the  spectators 
take  notice  that  they  suffered  justly  for  “ their  offences 
“ against  God  from  their  youth  upward,  and  also 
“ against  the  king’s  royal  majesty  very  dangerously/' 
The  meekness  and  piety  of  their  demeanour  seem  to 
have  deeply  interested  the  only  person  present,  who 
has  transmitted  to  us  any  account  of  their  last  mo- 
ments. “ Theyer  sowles,”  he  writes,  “ I doubt  not, 
“ be  with  God  ; for  they  made  the  moost  godly  and 
“ Christy an’s  end  that  ever  was  hard  tell  of,  I thinke, 
“ since  the  world’s  creation.”1 

To  attaint  without  trial  had  of  late  become  custom- 
ary ; but  to  prosecute  and  punish  for  that  which  had 
not  been  made  a criminal  offence  by  any  law,  was 
hitherto  unprecedented.  To  give,  therefore,  some 
countenance  to  these  severities,  it  was  enacted  in  the 
very  bill  of  attainder  that  every  woman,  about  to  be 
married  to  the  king  or  any  of  his  successors,  not 
being  a maid,  should  disclose  her  disgrace  to  him 
under  the  penalty  of  treason ; that  all  other  persons 
1 Otwell  Johnson’s  letter  to  his  brother,  in  Ellis,  ii.  128.  In  this 
confession  on  the  scaffold  the  queen  evades  a second  time  all  mention 
of  the  alleged  adultery.  She  employs  the  very  same  ambiguous  and 
unsatisfactory  language  which  Suffolk  had  employed  in  the  house  of 
Lords.  Could  this  be  accidental  ? or  was  not  that  particular  form 
enjoined  by  authority,  that  she  might  not  seem  to  impeach  “ the 
“ king’s  justice  ?”  On  a review  of  the  original  letters  in  the  State 
Papers,  of  the  act  of  attainder,  and  of  the  proceedings  in  parliament, 
I see  no  sufficient  reason  to  think  her  guilty ; and,  if  she  was  inno- 
cent, so  also  must  have  been  the  lady  Rochfort.  Like  her  pre- 
decessor Anne  Boleyn,  she  fell  a victim  to  the  jealousy  or  resentment 
of  a despotic  husband  ; but  in  one  respect  she  has  been  more  for- 
tunate. The  preservation  of  documents  respecting  her  fate  enables 
us  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  proofs  brought  against  her ; our 
ignorance  of  those  brought  against  Anne  renders  the  question  of  her 
guilt  or  innocence  more  problematical. 


USE  OF  THE  BIBLE  RESTRAINED. 


159 


knowing  the  fact  and  not  disclosing  it,  should  be  chap. 
subject  to  the  lesser  penalty  of  misprision  of  treason ; a.d.  1541. 
and  that  the  queen,  or  wife  of  the  prince,  who  should 
move  another  person  to  commit  adultery  with  her,  or 
the  person  who  should  move  her  to  commit  adultery 
with  him,  should  suffer  as  a traitor.1 

The  king’s  attention  was  next  directed  to  his  duties 
as  head  of  the  church.  He  had  formerly  sanctioned 
the  publication  of  an  English,  version  of  the  Bible,  and 
granted  permission  to  all  his  subjects  to  read  it  at 
their  leisure  ; but  it  had  been  represented  to  him,  that 
even  the  authorized  version  was  disfigured  by  unfaith- 
ful renderings,  and  contaminated  with  notes  calculated 
to  mislead  the  ignorant  and  unwary ; and  that  the 
indiscriminate  lecture  of  the  holy  volumes  had  not 
only  generated  a race  of  teachers  who  promulgated 
doctrines  the  most  strange  and  contradictory,  but  had 
taught  ignorant  men  to  discuss  the  meaning  of  the 
inspired  writings  in  alehouses  and  taverns,  till,  heated 
with  controversy  and  liquor,  they  burst  into  injurious 
language,  and  provoked  each  other  to  breaches  of  the 
peace.  To  remedy  the  first  of  these  evils,  it  was  1543- 

*■  . * May  12. 

enacted,  that  the  version  of  Tyndal  should  be  disused 
altogether  as  “ crafty,  false,  and  untrue,”  and  that  the 
authorized  translation  should  be  published  without 
note  or  comment;  to  obviate  the  second,  the  permis- 
sion of  reading  the  Bible  to  others  in  public  was 
revoked;  that  of  reading  it  to  private  families  was 
confined  to  persons  of  the  rank  of  lords  or  gentlemen; 
and  that  of  reading  it  personally  and  in  secret  was 
granted  only  to  men  who  were  householders,  and  to 
females  of  noble  or  gentle  birth.  Any  other  woman 
or  any  artificer,  apprentice,  journeyman,  servant,  or 
1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  859. 


160 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1543. 


labourer,  who  should  presume  to  open  the  sacred 
volume,  was  made  liable  for  each  offence  to  one 
month’s  imprisonment.1  The  king  had  already  issued 
a proclamation  forbidding  the  possession  of  Tyndal’s  or 
Coverdale’s  versions,  or  of  any  book  or  manuscript 
containing  matter  contrary  to  the  doctrine  set  forth  by 
authority  of  parliament ; ordering  all  such  books  to  be 
given  up  before  the  last  day  of  August,  that  they 
might  be  burnt  by  order  of  the  sheriff  or  the  bishop ; 
and  prohibiting  the  importation  “ of  any  manner  of 
“ Englishe  booke  concernyng  any  matter  of  Christin 
“ religion”  from  parts  beyond  the  sea.2 

It  was  not,  however,  the  king’s  intention  to  leave 
the  flock  committed  to  his  charge  without  a competent 
supply  of  spiritual  food.  The  reader  will  recollect 
that  Cromwell  in  1540  had  announced  the  appoint- 
ment of  two  committees  of  prelates  and  theologians 
to  compose  a new  code  of  doctrine  and  ceremonies. 
Certain  questions  had  been  proposed  to  each  person 
separately,  and  their  answers  were  collated  and  laid 
before  the  king.3  To  make  the  new  work  as  perfect 

1 St.  34  Hen.  VIII.  1.  The  king  at  the  same  time  was  authorized 
to  make  any  alterations  in  this  act  which  he  might  deem  proper. 

2 Chron.  Catal.  228.  The  persons  whose  writings  are  condemned 
by  name  are  Frythe,  Tyndall,  Wiclif,  Joye,  Roye,  Basyle,  Beale, 
Barnes,  Coverdale,  Tournour,  and  Tracy. — Ibid. 

3 Of  these  answers  some  have  been  published  ; others  are  to  be 
found  in  the  British  Museum  (Cleop.  E.  5).  Those  by  Cranmer 
prove  that  on  every  subject  he  had  made  a greater  proficiency  in  the 
new  learning  than  any  of  his  coadjutors;  but  his  opinion  respecting 
orders  appears  extremely  singular,  when  we  recollect  that  he  was 
archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  king,  he  says,  must  have  spiritual 
as  well  as  civil  officers,  and  of  course  has  a right  to  appoint  them ; 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles  the  people  appointed,  because  they  had 
no  Christian  king,  but  occasionally  accepted  such  as  might  be  recom- 
mended to  them  by  the  apostles,  “ of  their  own  voluntary  will,  and 
“ not  for  any  superiority  that  the  apostles  had  over  them in  the 
appointment  of  bishops  and  priests,  as  in  that  of  civil  officers,  some 
ceremonies  are  to  be  used,  “not  of  necessity,  but  for  good  order 


THE  KING’S  BOOK. 


161 


as  was  possible,  three  years  were  employed ; it  was  at 
last  published  with  the  title  of  “ A necessary  Doctrine 
“ and  Erudition  for  any  christned  Man and,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  “the  Institution,”  the  former  expo- 
sition of  the  same  subject,  it  was  called  the  King’s 
Book.  It  is  more  full,  but  teaches  the  same  doctrines, 
with  the  addition  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  suf- 
ficiency of  communion  under  one  kind.  The  new  creed 
was  approved  by  both  houses  of  convocation  all 
writings  or  books  in  opposition  to  it  were  prohibited ; 
and  by  the  archbishop  it  was  ordered  to  be  published 
in  every  diocese,  and  studied  and  followed  by  every 
preacher.2  From  that  period  till  the  accession  of  the 
next  sovereign,  “the  King’s  Book”  continued  to  be 
the  only  authorized  standard  of  English  orthodoxy. 

“ and  seemly  fashion  nevertheless,  “he,  who  is  appointed  bishop 
“ or  priest,  needeth  no  consecration  by  the  Scripture ; for  election  or 
“ appointing  thereto  is  sufficient.”  Aware,  however,  that  it  was 
difficult  to  reconcile  these  principles  with  the  declaration  which  he  had 
signed  in  the  preceding  year  (Wilk.  Con.  iii.  832),  or  with  such  as 
he  might  be  compelled  to  sign  hereafter,  he  very  prudently  added, 
“ this  is  mine  opinion  and  sentence  at  this  present : which  neverthe- 
“ less  I do  not  temerariously  define,  but  refer  the  judgment  thereof 
“to  your  majesty.” — Strype,  79,  App.  p.  48,  52.  Burnet,  i.  Coll, 
p.  201.  Collier,  ii.  Records,  xlix. 

1 Wilk.  Con.  iii.  868.  As  if  it  were  meant  to  probe  to  the  quick 
the  sincerity  of  the  prelates  suspected  of  leaning  to  the  new  doc- 
trines, the  chapters  on  the  two  obnoxious  tenets  of  transubstantia- 
tion, and  communion  under  one  kind,  were  subjected  to  the  revision 
and  approbation  of  the  archbishop,  and  the  bishops  of  Westminster, 
Salisbury,  Rochester,  and  Hereford,  three  of  whom  "were  reformers. 
Per  ipsos  exposita,  examinata,  et  recognita. — Ibid. 

2 Strype,  100. 


VOL.  V. 


M 


CHAP. 

II. 

A.D.  1543. 


April  30. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543. 


162 


CHAPTER  III. 

STATUTES  RESPECTING  WALES THAN  SACTIONS  IN  IRELAND NE- 
GOTIATION AND  WAR  WITH  SCOTLAND RUPTURE  WITH  PRANCE 

PEACE TAXES DEPRECIATION  OF  THE  CURRENCY CRANMER 

GARDINER KING’S  LAST  ILLNESS EXECUTION  OF  THE  EARL  OF 

SURREY ATTAINDER  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  NORFOLK DEATH  OF 

HENRY — HIS  CHARACTER SUBSERVIENCY  OF  THE  PARLIAMENT 

DOCTRINE  OF  PASSIVE  OBEDIENCE SERVILITY  OF  RELIGIOUS 

PARTIES. 

That  the  reader  might  follow  without  interruption 
the  progress  of  the  Reformation  in  England,  I have 
confined  his  attention  in  the  preceding  pages  to  those 
occurrences  which  had  an  immediate  tendency  to 
quicken  or  restrain  the  spirit  of  religious  innovation. 
The  present  chapter  will  be  devoted  to  matters  of 
foreign  and  domestic  policy  : 1 . The  extension  of  the 
English  jurisprudence  throughout  the  principality  of 
Wales  : 2.  The  rebellion  and  pacification  of  Ireland  : 
3.  The  negotiations  and  hostilities  between  the  crowns 
of  England  and  Scotland : and  4.  The  war,  which 
Henry  declared  against  “ his  good  brother,  and  per- 
“ petual  ally/’  the  king  of  France.  These  events  will 
lead  to  the  close  of  the  king’s  reign. 

1.  As  Henry  was  descended  from  the  Tudors,  a 
Welsh  family,  he  naturally  directed  his  attention  to 
the  native  country  of  his  paternal  ancestors.  It  might 
be  divided  into  two  portions,  that  which  had  been 
originally  conquered  by  the  arms  of  his  predecessors, 
and  that  which  had  been  won  by  the  courage  and 


WALES  AND  IRELAND. 


163 


perseverance  of  the  individuals  afterwards  called  the 
lords  marchers.  The  former  had  been  apportioned 
into  shires,  and  was  governed  by  the  laws  of  England  ; 
the  latter  comprised  one  hundred  and  forty-one  districts 
■or  lordships,  which  had  been  granted  to  the  first  con- 
querors, and  formed  so  many  distinct  and  independent 
jurisdictions.  From  them  the  king’s  writs,  and  the 
king’s  officers  were  excluded.  They  acknowledged  no 
other  laws  or  customs  than  their  own.  The  lords, 
like  so  many  counts  palatine,  had  their  own  courts, 
-civil  and  criminal,  appointed  their  own  officers  and 
judges,  punished  or  pardoned  offences  according  to 
their  pleasure,  and  received  all  the  emoluments  arising 
from  the  administration  of  justice  within  their  respec- 
tive domains.  But  the  great  evil  was,  that  this  mul- 
titude of  petty  and  separate  jurisdictions,  by  holding 
out  the  prospect  of  impunity,  proved  an  incitement  to 
crime.  The  most  atrocious  offender,  if  he  could  only  flee 
from  the  scene  of  his  transgression,  and  purchase  the 
protection  of  a neighbouring  lord,  was  sheltered  from 
the  pursuit  of  justice,  and  at  liberty  to  enjoy  the  fruit 
of  his  dishonesty  or  revenge. 

The  king,  however,  put  an  end  to  this  mischievous 
and  anomalous  state  of  things.  In  1536  it  was  en- 
acted, that  the  whole  of  Wales  should  thenceforth  be 
united  and  incorporated  with  the  realm  of  England  ; 
that  all  the  natives  should  enjoy  and  inherit  the  same 
rights,  liberties,  and  laws,  which  were  enjoyed  and 
inherited  by  others  the  king’s  subjects ; that  the 
custom  of  gavel-kind  should  cease ; that  the  several 
lordships’ marchers  should  be  annexed  to  the  neighbour- 
ing counties  ; that  all  judges  and  justices  of  the  peace 
should  be  appointed  by  the  king’s  letters  patent ; that 
no  lord  should  have  the  power  to  pardon  any  treason, 

M 2 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543. 


164 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543 


1520. 

April. 


1522. 


murder,  or  felony  committed  within  his  lordship  ; and 
that  the  different  shires  in  Wales,  with  one  borough 
in  each,  should  return  members  to  parliament.  Most 
of  these  regulations  were  extended  to  the  county 
palatine  of  Chester.1 

2.  When  Henry  ascended  the  throne,  the  exercise 
of  the  royal  authority  in  Ireland  was  circumscribed 
within  very  narrow  limits,  comprising  only  the  princi- 
pal seaports,  with  one-half  of  the  five  counties  of 
Louth,  Westmeath,  Dublin,  Kildare,  and  Wexford  ; 
the  rest  of  the  island  was  unequally  divided  among 
sixty  chieftains  of  Irish,  and  thirty  of  English  origin* 
who  governed  the  inhabitants  of  their  respective 
domains,  and  made  war  upon  each  other,  as  freely 
and  as  recklessly  as  if  they  had  been  independent 
sovereigns.2  To  Wolsey  it  appeared  that  one  great 
cause  of  the  decay  of  the  English  power  was  the 
jealousy  and  the  dissension  between  the  two  rival 
families  of  the  Fitzgeralds  and  the  Butlers,  under 
their  respective  chiefs,  the  earls  of  Kildare,  and  ot 
Ormond  or  Ossory.  That  he  might  extinguish  or  re- 
press these  hereditary  feuds,  he  determined  to  intrust 
the  government  to  the  more  impartial  sway  of  an 
English  nobleman,  and  the  young  earl  of  Kildare,  who 
had  succeeded  his  father,  was  removed  from  the  office 
of  lord  deputy,  to  make  place  for  the  earl  of  Surrey, 
afterwards  duke  of  Norfolk.  During  two  years  the 
English  governor  overawed  the  turbulence  of  the  Irish 
lords  by  the  vigour  of  his  administration,  and  won  the 
esteem  of  the  natives  by  his  hospitality  and  munificence. 
But  when  Henry  declared  war  against  France,  Surrey 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  536,  555,  563.  In  the  county  of  Merioneth 
there  was  no  borough  which  returned  a member,  but  in  that  of 
Pembroke  there  were  two,  Pembroke  and  Haverfordwest. 

2 See  a contemporary  memoir  in  St.  Pap.  ii.  1 — 31. 


REBELLION  IN  KILDARE. 


165 


was  recalled  to  take  the  command  of  the  army ; and 
the  government  of  Ireland  was  conferred  on  Butler, 
earl  of  Ossory.  Ossory  was  soon  compelled  to  resign 
it  to  Kildare ; Kildare  transmitted  it  to  Sir  William 
Skeffington,  an  English  knight,  deputy  to  the  duke  of 
Richmond ; and  Skeffington,  after  a short  interval, 
replaced  it  in  the  hands  of  his  immediate  predecessor. 
Thus  Kildare  saw  himself  for  the  third  time  invested 
with  the  chief  authority  in  the  island  ; but  no  longer 
awed  by  the  frowns  of  Wolsey,  who  had  fallen  into 
disgrace,  he  indulged  in  such  acts  of  extravagance, 
that  his  very  friends  attributed  them  to  occasional 
derangement  of  intellect. 

The  complaints  of  the  Butlers  induced  Henry  to  call 
the  deputy  to  London,  and  to  confine  him  in  the 
Tower.  At  his  departure  the  reins  of  government 
dropped  into  the  hands  of  his  son,  the  lord  Thomas, 
a young  man  in  his  twent}r-first  year,  generous,  violent, 
and  brave.1  His  credulity  was  deceived  by  a false 
report  that  his  father  had  been  beheaded ; and  his 
resentment  urged  him  to  the  fatal  resolution  of  bidding 
defiance  to  his  sovereign.  At  the  head  of  one  hundred 
and  forty  followers  he  presented  himself  before  the 
council,  resigned  the  sword  of  state,  the  emblem  of 
his  authority,  and  in  a loud  tone  declared  war  against 
Henry  VIII.,  king  of  England.  Cromer,  archbishop 
of  Armagh,  seizing  him  by  the  hand,  most  earnestly 
besought  him  not  to  plunge  himself  and  his  family 
into  irremediable  ruin;  but  the  voice  of  the  prelate 
was  drowned  in  the  strains  of  an  Irish  minstrel  who, 
in  his  native  tongue,  called  on  the  hero  to  revenge  the 
blood  of  his  father ; and  the  precipitate  youth,  unfurl- 
ing the  standard  of  rebellion,  commenced  his  career 
1 Hall,  226.  Herbert,  415. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1522. 


Feb.  25. 


IS32. 


1534. 

February. 


June  ii. 


166 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1534. 


July  26. 


Oct.  1 6. 


1535. 

March  23. 


August  20. 


with  laying  waste  the  rich  district  of  Eingal.  A gleam 
of  success  cast  a temporary  lustre  on  his  arms  ; and 
his  revenge  was  gratified  with  the  punishment  of  the 
supposed  accuser  of  his  father,  Allen,  archbishop  of 
Dublin,  who  was  surprised  and  put  to  death  by  the 
Geraldines.  He  now  sent  an  agent  to  the  emperor, 
to  demand  assistance  against  the  man  who  by  divorc- 
ing Catherine  had  insulted  the  honour  of  the  imperial 
family;  and  wrote  to  the  pope,  offering  to  protect 
with  his  sword  the  interests  of  the  church  against  an 
apostate  prince,  and  to  hold  the  crown  of  Ireland  of 
the  Holy  See  by  the  payment  of  a yearly  tribute.  But 
fortune  quickly  deserted  him.  He  was  repulsed  from 
the  walls  of  Dublin  by  the  valour  or  despair  of  the 
citizens  ; Skeffington,  the  new  deputy,  opposed  to  his 
undisciplined  followers  a numerous  body  of  veterans 
his  strong  castle  of  Maynouth  was  carried  by  assault, 
and  the  lord  Leonard  Gray  hunted  the  ill-fated  in- 
surgent into  the  fastnesses  of  Munster.  Here  by  the 
advice  of  his  friends  he  offered  to  submit  ; but  his 
simplicity  was  no  match  for  the  subtlety  of  his  op- 
ponent ; he  suffered  himself  to  be  deceived  by  assur- 
ances of  pardon,  dismissed  his  adherents,  accompanied 
Gray  to  Dublin,  and  thence  sailed  to  England,  that 
he  might  throw  himself  at  the  feet  of  his  sovereign.1 
Henry  was  at  a loss  in  what  manner  to  receive  him. 
Could  it  be  to  his  honour  to  allow  a subject  to  live 


1 Sponte  se  in  regis  potestatem,  accepta  impunitatis  fide  dedit 
....  fidein  publicam  qua  se  tueri  jure  potest,  habet. — Poli  ep.  i. 
481.  Skeffington,  indeed,  says  that  he  had  surrendered  “without 
“condition.” — St.  Pap.  274.  But  that  he  was  prevailed  upon  to 
do  so  by  assurances  of  pardon  is  plain  from  the  letter  of  the  Irish 
council  (p.  275),  that  of  Norfolk  (277),  and  the  answer  of  Henry,  “if 
“ he  had  beene  apprended  after  suche  sorte  as  was  convenable  to  his 
“ deservyngs,  the  same  had  beene  much  more  thankfull,  and  better 
“ to  our  contentacion.” — Ibid.  280. 


INNOVATIONS  IN  IRELAND. 


167 


who  had  taken  up  arms  against  him  P But  then,  was  it  chap. 
for  his  interest  to  teach  the  Irish  that  no  faith  was  to  a.d.  1535. 
be  put  in  the  promises  of  his  lieutenants  P1  He  com- 
mitted Fitzgerald  to  the  Tower ; soon  afterwards  ^36. 
Gray,  who  had  succeeded  Skeffington,  perfidiously 
apprehended  the  five  uncles  of  the  captive  at  a ban- 
quet ; and  the  year  following  all  six,  though  it  is  said  Flb.73. 
that  three  had  never  joined  in  the  rebellion,  were 
beheaded  in  consequence  of  an  act  of  attainder  passed 
by  the  English  parliament.2  Fitzgerald’s  father  had 
already  died  of  a broken  heart,  and  the  last  hopes  of 
the  family  centred  in  Gerald,  the  brother  of  Thomas, 
a boy  about  twelve  years  old.  By  the  contrivance  of 
his  aunt,  he  was  conveyed  beyond  the  reach  of  Henry, 
and  intrusted  to  the  fidelity  of  two  native  chieftains,  *533- 
CKNeil  and  O’Donnel.  Two  years  later  he  had  the  154°- 
good  fortune  to  escape  to  the  continent,  but  was 
followed  by  the  vengeance  or  the  policy  of  the  king, 
who  demanded  him  of  the  king  of  France,  and  after 
wards  of  the  governor  of  Flanders,  in  virtue  of  pre- 
ceding treaties.  Expelled  from  Flanders,  he  was,  at 
the  recommendation  of  the  pope,  Paul  III.,  taken 
under  the  protection  of  the  prince  bishop  of  Liege, 
and  afterwards  into  the  family  of  his  kinsman,  Cardinal 
Pole,  who  watched  over  his  education,  and  provided 
for  his  support  till  at  length  he  recovered  the  honours 
and  the  estates  of  his  ancestors,  the  former  earls  of 
Kildare.3 * 

1 See  Audeley’s  Advice,  St.  Pap.  i.  446;  Norfolk’s,  ii.  277. 

2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  See  a letter  of  Fitzgerald  from  the  Tower, 
stating  his  miserable  condition,  and  that  he  must  have  gone  naked, 

“ but  that  pore  prysoners  of  ther  gentylnes  hathe  sumtyme  gevyn 
11  me  old  hosyn,  and  shoys,  and  old  shyrtes.” — St.  Pap.  403. 

3 Godwin,  62,  63.  Herbert,  415 — 417,  491.  Raynald,  xxxii. 

592- 


168 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap.  Henry’s  innovations  in  religion  were  viewed  with 
a.d.  1533.  equal  abhorrence  by  the  indigenous  Irish  and  the 
descendants  of  the  English  colonists.  Fitzgerald, 
aware  of  this  circumstance,  had  proclaimed  himself 
the  champion  of  the  ancient  faith  ;l  and  after  the 
imprisonment  of  Fitzgerald,  his  place  was  supplied  by 
the  zeal  of  Cromer,  archbishop  of  Armagh.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  cause  of  the  king  was  supported  by  a 
more  courtly  prelate.  Brown,  who,  from  the  office  of 
provincial  of  the  Augustinian  friars  in  England,  had 
MarchSi2.  been  raised  to  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Dublin,  in 
reward  of  his  subserviency  to  the  politics  of  Cromwell. 
But  Henry  determined  to  enforce  submission.  A par- 
May6i.  liament  was  summoned  by  Lord  Gray,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded Skeffington ; and,  to  elude  the  opposition  of 
the  clergy,  their  proctors,  who  had  hitherto  voted  in 
the  Irish  parliaments,  were  by^  a declaratory  act  pro- 
nounced to  be  nothing  more  than  assistants,  whose 
advice  might  be  received,  but  whose  assent  was  not 
required.2  The  statutes  which  were  now  passed  were 
copied  from  the  proceedings  in  England.  The  papal 
authority  was  abolished ; Henry  was  declared  head  of 
the  Irish  church  ; and  the  first-fruits  of  all  ecclesi- 
astical livings  were  given  to  the  king.  But  ignorance 
of  the  recent  occurrences  in  the  sister  island  gave 
occasion  to  a most  singular  blunder.  One  day  the 
parliament  confirmed  the  marriage  of  the  king  with 
Anne  Boleyn ; and  the  next,  in  consequence  of  the 
arrival  of  a courier,  declared  it  to  have  been  invalid 
from  the  beginning.  It  was,  however,  more  easy  to 
procure  the  enactment  of  these  statutes,  than  to  enforce 
their  execution.  The  two  races  combined  in  defence 

1 Pro  pontificis  authoritate  in  Hibernia  arma  sumpserat. — Pole, 
ibid.  2 Irish  St.  28  Henry  VIII.  12. 


PACIFICATION  OF  IRELAND. 


169 


of  their  common  faith ; and  repeated  insurrections  chap. 
exercised  the  patience  of  the  deputy,  till  his  brilliant  a.d.  1536. 
victory  at  Bellahoe  broke  the  power  of  O’Heil,  the 
northern  chieftain,  and  confirmed  the  ascendancy  of 
the  royal  cause.  This  was  the  last  service  performed 
by  Lord  Gray.  He  was  uncle  by  his  sister  to  the 
young  Fitzgerald,  and  therefore  suspected  of  having 
connived  at  his  escape.  This,  with  numerous  other 
charges  from  his  enemies,  was  laid  before  the  king; 
and  he  solicited  permission  to  return,  and  plead  his  June  12. 
cause  in  the  presence  of  his  sovereign.  The  petition 
was  granted ; but  the  unfortunate  deputy  soon  found 
himself  a prisoner  in  the  Tower,  and  was  afterwards 
arraigned  under  the  charge  of  treason  for  having  aided  jJnt^s. 
and  abetted  the  king’s  rebels.  Oppressed  by  fear,Nor — .... 
induced  by  the  hope  of  mercy,  he  pleaded  guilty ; and 
his  head  was  struck  off  by  the  command  of  the  thank- 
less sovereign,  whom  he  had  so  often  and  so  usefully  June  28. 
served.1 

After  the  departure  of  Gray,  successive  but  partial 
insurrections  broke  out  in  the  island.  They  speedily 
subsided  of  themselves ; and  the  new  deputy,  Sir 
Anthony  Saintleger,  found  both  the  Irish  chieftains 
and  the  lords  of  the  pale  anxious  to  outstrip  each 
other  in  professions  of  obedience  to  his  authority.  A 
parliament  was  assembled;  Ireland  from  a lordship  jaS^s. 
was  raised  to  the  higher  rank  of  a kingdom ; Henry 
was  declared  head  of  the  church,  regulations  were 
made  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  Connaught 
and  Munster ; and  commissioners  were  appointed  with 

1 Godwin,  73.  “As  he  was  come  of  high  lineage,  so  was  he  a 
u right  valiant  and  hardy  personage ; although  now  his  hap  was  to 
“ lose  his  head.” — Stowe,  582.  See  the  charges  in  State  Papers, 
iii.  248. 


170 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  power  to  hear  and  determine  all  causes  which  might 
a.d.  1542.  be  brought  before  them  from  the  other  provinces.1 

The  peerage  of  the  new  kingdom  was  sought  and 
obtained,  not  only  by  the  lords  who  had  hitherto  ac- 
knowledged the  authority  of  the  English  crown,  but 
even  by  the  most  powerful  of  the  chieftains,  who, 
though  nominally  vassals,  had  maintained  a real  in- 
ji;iy3j  dependence;  by  Ulliac  de  Burg,  now  created  earl 
of  Clanricard ; by  Murrogh  O’Brian,  made  earl  of 
Thomond  ; and  by  the  redoubted  O’Neil,  henceforth 
Bepti  known  by  his  new  title  of  earl  of  Tyrone.2  These, 
with  the  chief  of  their  kindred,  swore  fealty,  consented 
to  hold  their  lands  by  the  tenure  of  military  service, 
and  accepted  from  their  sovereign  houses  in  Dublin 
for  their  accommodation,  as  often  as  they  should  at- 
tend their  duty  in  parliament.  Never,  since  the  first 
invasion  of  the  island  by  Henry  II.,  did  the  English 
ascendancy  in  Ireland  appear  to  rest  on  so  firm  a basis 
as  during  the  last  years  of  Henry  VIII. 

3.  To  explain  the  several  causes  which  successively 
contributed  to  produce  the  rupture  between  Henry 
and  his  nephew  the  king  of  Scotland,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  revert  to  the  period  of  the  great  battle  of 
Pavia.  The  intelligence  of  the  captivity  of  Francis 
extinguished  at  once  the  hopes  of  the  French  faction 
in  Scotland ; and  the  earl  of  Angus,  with  the  aid  of 
the  English  monarch,  obtained  possession  of  the  young 
king  James  V.,  and  with  him  the  exercise  of  the 
royal  authority.  Margaret,  the  queen-dowager,  had 
long  ago  forfeited  the  confidence  of  her  royal  brother ; 
an  intercepted  letter,  which  she  had  lately  written  to 
the  duke  of  Albany,  estranged  him  from  her  for  ever. 

1 Irish  St.  33  Henry  VIII.  1.  Chron.  Catal.  p.  232. 

2 liym.  xiv.  7.97 — 801 ; xv.  7. 


RUPTURE  WITH  SCOTLAND. 


171 


He  willingly  suffered  her  to  be  deprived  even  of  the  chap. 
nominal  authority  which  remained  to  her : Angus  a.d.  ^525 
consented  to  a divorce ; she  married  her  paramour,  M~k 
afterwards  created  Lord  Methven,  and  silently  sunk 
into  the  obscurity  of  private  life.  But  her  son,  though 
only  in  his  seventeenth  year,  felt  the  thraldom  in 
which  he  was  detained  by  the  Douglases,  and  anxi- 
ously sought  to  obtain  his  liberty,  and  exercise  his  i-2g 
authority.  At  length,  he  eluded  the  vigilance  of  his  May- 
keepers,  levied  an  army,  and  drove  his  enemies  beyond 
the  borders  ; where  Angus  remained  for  years,  an  exile 
from  his  own  country,  and  the  pensioner  of  England. 

The  young  king,  notwithstanding  his  relationship  to 
Henry,  seems  to  have  inherited  the  political  sentiments 
of  his  fathers,  and  sought  to  fortify  himself  against  the 
ambition  of  his  powerful  neighbour  by  the  friendship 
of  the  emperor  and  of  the  king  of  France.  In  1 532 
the  two  crowns  were  unintentionally  involved  in  hos- 
tilities by  the  turbulence  of  the  borderers ; tranquillity 
was  restored  by  the  good  offices  of  Francis,  the  com-  Ma|4is. 
mon  friend  of  the  uncle  and  nephew;  and  James  was 
even  induced  to  solicit  the  hand  of  the  princess  Mary. 

But  it  was  at  a time  when  only  a few  months  had 
elapsed  since  the  divorce  of  Henry  from  Catherine  ; and 
the  king,  who  had  formerly  offered,  now  refused  his 
consent  to  a marriage  which  might  afterwards  lead  the 
king  of  Scots  to  dispute  the  succession  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Anne  Boleyn.  This  refusal  induced  James  to 
seek  a wife  from  some  of  the  foreign  courts,  while  the 
English  monarch  vainly  endeavoured  to  make  his 
nephew  a proselyte  to  his  new  doctrine  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical supremacy  of  princes  within  their  respective 
kingdoms.  For  this  purpose  he  sent  to  James  a 1535 
treatise  on  that  subject,  with  a request  that  he  would 


172 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1535. 


1536. 

March  29. 


Sept.  10. 


1537. 
Jan.  1. 


seriously  weigh  its  contents ; and  solicited  at  the  same 
time  permission  for  his  agent  Barlow,  bishop  elect  of 
St.  David’s,  to  preach  to  the  Scottish  court.  The 
present  was  received  with  an  air  of  indifference,  and 
instantly  delivered  to  one  of  the  prelates ; and  the 
English  missionary,  finding  every  pulpit  closed  against 
him,  vented  his  discontent  in  letters  to  Cromwell,  in 
which  he  denominated  the  clerical  counsellors  of 
James,  “the  pope’s  pestilent  creatures,  and  very  limbs 
“ of  the  devil.”1 

Henry  now  requested  a personal  interview  at  York ; 
but  James,  who  feared  to  trust  himself  in  the  hands  of 
his  uncle,  eluded  the  demand  by  proposing  a meeting 
of  the  three  kings  of  England,  France,  and  Scotland, 
at  some  place  on  the  continent.2  Soon  afterwards,  he 
concluded  a treaty  of  marriage  with  Marie  de  Bour- 
bon, a daughter  of  Yendome ; but  unwilling  to  rely 
on  the  report  of  his  ambassadors,  he  sailed  to  Dieppe, 
and  visited  his  intended  bride,  whose  appearance  dis- 
appointed his  expectations.  Disguising  bis  feelings, 
he  hastened  to  be  present  at  the  expected  battle  be- 
tween the  French  and  Imperial  armies  in  Provence ; 
but  was  met  by  Francis  on  Mount  Tarare,  in  the 
vicinity  of  Lyons.  The  two  monarchs  repaired  to 
Paris;  Marie  was  forgotten;  and  James  married 
Madeleine,  the  daughter  of  the  French  king,  a beau- 
tiful and  accomplished  princess,  who  was  even  then  in 

1 Pinkerton,  ii.  327.  “ The  Doctrine  of  a Christian  Man”  was 

not  published  till  after  this  period ; the  book  sent  was  probably  either 
Gardiner’s  treatise  De  Vera  Obedientia,  or  another,  De  Vera  Dif- 
ferentia Regiae  potestatis  et  Ecclesiasticae ; both  of  which  had  been 
printed  the  year  before. 

3 According  to  a minute  of  the  English  council,  “ he  not  only 
“ brake  with  th’  appoyntment  made  for  the  entrevue,  but  for  the 
“ pretence  of  his  cause  therein  alleaged  that  it  was  said,  he  shuld  be 
“ betrayed,  if  he  proceded  in  the  same.” — St.  Pap.  535. 


MARRIAGE  OF  JAMES. 


173 


a decline,  and  died  within  fifty  days  after  her  arrival  chap. 
in  Scotland.  During  some  time  her  husband  appeared  a.d.  1537. 
inconsolable  for  her  loss  ; the  next  year  he  married 
another  French  princess,  Marie,  duchess  dowager  of  I5s8 
Longueville,  and  daughter  to  the  duke  of  Guise  : the  Jan- IO- 
same  lady  who  had  declined  the  offer  of  the  king  of 
England.1 

The  king  of  Scots,  satisfied  with  his  own  creed,  re- 
fused to  engage  in  theological  disputes ; and  the  pon- 
tiff, to  rivet  him  more  closely  to  the  communion  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  bestowed  a cardinal's  cap  on  the  most 
able  and  most  favoured  of  his  counsellors,  David  Bea- 
ton, abbot  of  Arbroath,  afterwards  bishop  of  Mirepoix, 
and  lastly  archbishop  of  St.  Andrew's.  During  his 
journey  James  had  noticed  the  terms  of  execration  in 
which  foreigners  reprobated  the  rapacity  and  cruelty 
of  his  reforming  uncle ; and  his  gratitude  for  the  at- 
tentions and  generosity  of  Francis  inclined  him  to 
espouse  and  support  the  politics  of  the  French  court. 

When  Paul  had  at  last  determined  to  publish  the 
sentence  of  deprivation  against  Henry,  James  signified 
his  assent,  and  promised  to  join  with  Charles  and 
Francis  in  their  endeavours  to  convert  or  punish  the 
apostate  monarch.2 

Henry,  whose  pensioners  swarmed  in  every  court, 
was  quickly  apprized  of  these  dispositions,  and,  as  soon 
as  he  had  learned  the  real  object  of  Cardinal  Pole's 
legation  to  the  emperor  and  the  king  of  France,  de- 
spatched  Balph  Sadler,  one  of  the  gentlemen  of  his 
privy  chamber,  as  his  ambassador  to  Edinburgh.  This 

1 Leslie,  426. 

2 Habebit  regem  Scotise,  et  hie  novum  creatum  cardinalem 
Scotum. — Instruc.  pro  Card.  Polo  apud  Quirini,  ii.  Mon.  PrEel. 
cclxxix. 


174 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1539. 


minister  assured  the  king  of  Scots,  that  the  warlike 
preparations  in  England  were  not  designed  against 
him,  hut  against  the  pope  and  his  associates  ; exhorted 
him,  instead  of  giving  credit  to  the  assertions  of  his 
clergy,  to  examine  the  foundations  of  the  papal  claims, 
which  he  would  find  to  be  nothing  more  than  an  usur- 
pation of  the  rights  of  sovereigns  ; requested  him  not 
to  permit  the  bull  against  his  uncle  to  be  published,  or 
executed  within  his  dominions ; and  reminded  him, 
that  Henry  was  a nearer  relation  to  him  than  any 
other  prince,  and  that,  though  it  was  not  required  of 
him  to  renounce  his  engagements  with  the  king  of 
France,  it  was  his  interest  to  abstain  from  measures, 
of  which  he  might  afterwards  repent.1 

What  effect  these  remonstrances  might  have  pro- 
duced is  uncertain ; but,  as  neither  Charles  nor  Francis 
attempted  to  enforce  the  papal  bull,  their  inactivity 
induced  the  king  of  Scots  to  preserve  the  relations  of 
amity  with  his  uncle.  Henry,  however,  continued  to 
grow  more  jealous  both  of  the  religious  opinions  of 
James,  and  of  his  connection  with  the  French  court. 
If  a few  Scottish  refugees,  the  partisans  of  the  new 
doctrine,  flattered  him  with  ■ the  hope  that  their 
sovereign  would  imitate  him  in  assuming  the  su- 
premacy of  the  church,  he  was  harassed  on  the  other 
hand  with  reports,  that  the  king  of  Scots  urged  with 
assiduity  the  improvement  of  his  artillery  ; that  he  had 
promised  support  to  the  malcontents  in  the  northern 

1 Sadler’s  State  Papers,  50 — 56.  Mr.  Clifford,  on  the  authority 
of  Mr.  Pinkerton  (Hist.  ii.  p.  374),  has  allotted  this  negotiation  to 
the  year  1541 ; but  it  is  evident,  from  Sadler’s  instructions,  that  they 
were  composed  after  Cardinal  Pole  had  failed  with  the  emperor,  and 
while  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  would  succeed  or  not  with  the  king 
of  France  (Sadler’s  Papers,  p.  53) ; i.  e.  between  the  end  of 
January  and  the  beginning  of  April,  1539. 


NEGOTIATIONS. 


175 


counties  ; and  that  he  suffered  ballads  derogatory  from  chap. 
the  honour  of  Henry,  and  prophecies  predictive  of  his  a.d.  1539. 
downfal,  to  be  circulated  on  the  borders.  Another 
effort  to  convert  James  was  made  through  the  agency 
of  Sadler.  The  ostensible  object  of  that  minister  was 
to  present  to  the  king  half  a dozen  stallions,  sent  to 
him  by  his  uncle ; but  he  was  ordered  to  solicit  a 
private  audience,  and  a promise  that  the  conversation 
should  not  be  divulged.  Sadler  then  read  to  James  _ *540. 

° . February. 

an  intercepted  letter  from  Beaton  to  his  agent  at 
Rome,  from  which  he  inferred  that  it  was  the  aim  of 
the  cardinal  to  subject  the  royal  authority  to  that  of 
the  pope.1  But  the  king  laughed  at  the  charge,  and 
said  that  the  cardinal  had  long  ago  given  him  a copy 
of  the  letter.  The  envoy  then  observed  that  Henry 
was  ashamed  of  the  meanness  of  his  nephew,  who  kept 
large  flocks  of  sheep,  as  if  he  were  a husbandman,  and 
not  a sovereign.  If  he  wanted  money,  let  him  supply 
Irimself  from  the  riches  of  the  church ; he  need  only 
make  the  experiment,  and  he  would  find  in  the  dis- 
solute lives  of  the  monks  and  churchmen  reasons  to 
justify  himself  in  following  the  example  of  England. 

J ames  replied  that  he  had  sufficient  of  his  own,  with- 
out invading  the  property  of  others ; that  if  he  wanted 
more,  the  church  would  cheerfully  supply  his  wants ; 
that,  if  among  the  clergy  and  monks  there  were  some 
who  disgraced  their  profession,  there  were  also  many 
whose  virtues  deserved  praise;  and  that  it  did  not 

1 James  had  committed  two  clergymen  to  prison.  Beaton,  in  his 
letter,  said  he  should  labour  to  have  them  delivered  to  him,  as  their 
•ordinary  judge. — Sadler’s  Papers,  p.  14.  This,  and  a petition  for 
that  purpose,  were  the  foundation  of  the  charge.  James  replied, 

“ As  for  those  men,  they  are  but  simple,  and  it  was  but  a small 
“ matter ; and  we  ourselves  made  the  cardinal  the  minister  both  to 
■“  commit  them,  and  to  deliver  them”  (p.  43). 


176 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A D.  1540. 


1541- 

March. 


July. 


accord  with  his  notions  of  justice  to  punish  the  inno- 
cent equally  with  the  guilty.  Sadler  proceeded  to 
show  the  advantage  which  the  king  would  derive  from 
the  friendship  of  Henry,  in  preference  to  that  of 
Francis;  to  hold  out  a prospect  of  his  being  inserted 
in  the  act  of  succession  after  Prince  Edward ; and  to 
exhort  him  to  meet  his  uncle  at  York,  and  enter  into* 
a more  particular  discussion  of  these  subjects.  He 
answered  with  general  expressions  of  affection  and 
gratitude,  but  adroitly  declined  the  meeting.  The 
envoy  in  his  letters  ascribed  the  failure  of  his  mission 
to  the  jealousy  of  the  clergy.  The  principal  of  the 
nobility  were,  if  we  may  believe  him,  sufficiently  in- 
clined to  enrich  themselves  at  the  expense  of  the’ 
church.  But  their  ignorance  excluded  them  from 
the  royal  councils ; and  James  was  compelled  to 
give  his  confidence  to  clergymen,  who  naturally  op- 
posed every  measure  which  might  lead  to  the  loss 
of  their  privileges,  or  to  the  diminution  of  their  in- 
comes.1 

In  the  next  year  the  Scottish  parliament,  as  if  it 
meant  to  stigmatize  the  proceedings  of  that  of  Eng- 
land, passed  several  laws  in  support  of  the  ancient 
doctrines  and  of  the  papal  supremacy.  The  cardinal 
soon  afterwards  left  Scotland,  to  proceed  through 
France  to  Borne.  If  his  departure  revived  the  jea- 
lousy of  the  king  of  England,  who  suspected  that  a 
league  was  in  agitation  against  him,  it  suggested  at 
the  same  time  a hope  that  the  obstinacy  of  James 
might  be  subdued,  when  it  was  no  longer  upheld  by 
the  presence  and  counsels  of  the  prelate.  An  inter- 
view at  York  was  proposed  for  a third  time ; the  lord 
William  Howard,  the  English  envoy,  flattered  his 
1 Sadler’s  Papers,  3 — 49. 


WAR  BETWEEN  THE  TWO  CROWNS. 


177 


master  with  a prospect  of  success ; and  Henry  left  chap. 
London  on  his  road  into  Yorkshire.  But  James,  who  a.d.  1541. 
feared  that,  if  he  once  put  himself  in  the  power  of  his 
uncle,  he  should  not  be  permitted  to  return  without 
either  renouncing  his  alliance  with  France,  or  abjuring 
the  authority  of  the  pope,  refused  to  leave  his  own 
kingdom ; and  Henry,  having  waited  more  than  a 
week  for  his  arrival  at  York,  returned  in  discontent  SePh  26  • 
to  London,  and  would  scarcely  condescend  to  hear  the 
apology  offered  by  the  Scottish  ambassadors.1 

The  English  cabinet  now  determined  to  accomplish 
by  force  what  it  had  in  vain  attempted  by  artifice  and 
persuasion.  Paget  was  first  employed  to  sound  the 
disposition  of  the  king  of  France ; whose  answer, 
though  unsatisfactory  to  Henry,  showed  that,  in  the 
present  circumstances,  little  aid  could  be  expected  by 
Scotland  from  her  ancient  ally.  In  August  forays  *542. 

J 0 * August. 

were  reciprocally  made  across  the  borders  ; and  each 
nation  charged  the  other  with  the  first  aggression ; 
but  the  Scots  had  the  advantage,  who  at  Haldenrig 
defeated  three  thousand  cavalry  under  the  earl  of 
Angus  and  Sir  Robert  Bowes,  and  made  most  of 
the  captains  prisoners.  Enraged  at  this  loss,  the  king 
published  a declaration  of  war,  in  which  he  claimed 
the  superiority  over  the  Scottish  crown,  and  ordered 
the  duke  of  Norfolk  to  assemble  a numerous  army  at 
York ; but  James,  who  had  made  no  preparation  for 
war,  arrested  his  march  by  opening  a negotiation ; and 

1 Hall,  248.  Leslie,  432,  433.  The  refusal  of  James  was  nobilium 
consiliis  (Id.).  Lethington  says  that  Henry  intended  to  have 
limited  the  succession  to  James  and  his  heirs,  but  was  so  irritated 
by  the  answer  of  that  prince,  that  he  passed  over  the  Scottish  line 
entirely  in  his  will. — Haynes,  373.  It  appears,  however,  from  a 
minute  in  council,  that  as  early  as  in  1537  Henry  was  desirous  of 
11  taking  awaye  the  remayndre  hanging  on  the  king  of  Scottes.” — 

State  Papers,  546. 

VOL.  Y.  N 


178 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAr. 

III. 

A.D.  1542. 
Oct.  21. 


Oct.  28. 


Nov.  1. 


Nov.  25. 


Dec.  14. 


detained  Norfolk  at  York,  till  Henry,  impatient  of 
delay,  sent  him  a peremptory  order  to  enter  Scotland. 
The  dnke  crossed  the  borders,  and  gave  to  the  flames 
two  towns  and  twenty  villages ; but  on  the  eighth 
day,  constrained  by  want,  or  by  the  inclemency  of  the 
season,  he  returned  to  Berwick.  James  with  thirty 
thousand  men  had  advanced  as  far  as  Fala,  to  meet 
the  invaders.  On  the  intelligence  of  their  retreat,  he 
proposed  to  follow  them  into  England ; but  it  was 
objected  that  he  had  yet  no  heir,  and  that,  if  the  same 
misfortune  were  to  befal  him  which  had  deprived 
Scotland  of  his  father  at  Flodden,  the  kingdom  would 
be  exposed  to  the  ambition  of  his  uncle.  Compelled 
to  dismiss  his  army,  he  repaired  to  the  western 
marches,  and  ordered  Lord  Maxwell  to  enter  England 
with  ten  thousand  men,  and  to  remain  there  as  many 
days  as  the  duke  of  Norfolk  had  been  in  Scotland. 
Maxwell  crossed  the  borders ; and  the  next  day  was 
opposed  by  Sir  Thomas  Wharton,  the  English  warden. 
Whether  it  was  that  the  Scots,  as  their  historians  say, 
refused  to  fight,  because  the  command  had  been  taken 
from  Maxwell  and  given  to  Sinclair,  the  royal  fa- 
vourite; or  that,  as  was  reported  in  England,  they 
believed  the  attack  to  proceed  from  the  whole  of 
Norfolk’s  army,  both  the  men  and  their  leaders  fled 
in  irremediable  confusion ; twenty-four  pieces  of  artil- 
lery, the  whole  of  the  royal  train,  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  enemy ; and  two  earls,  five  barons,  and  two  hun- 
dred gentlemen,  with  eight  hundred  of  their  followers, 
were  made  prisoners.  This  cruel  and  unlooked-for 
stroke  subdued  the  spirit  of  James.  From  the  neigh- 
bouring castle  of  Carlaveroc  he  hastened  to  Edinburgh, 
and  thence  to  the  solitude  of  Falkland,  where  a fever, 
aided  by  anguish  of  mind,  overcame  the  strength  of  his 


PARTIES  IN  SCOTLAND. 


179 


constitution.  A week  before  bis  death,  his  queen  was  chap. 
delivered  of  a female  child,  who,  under  the  name  of  a.d.  1542. 
Mary,  was  proclaimed  his  successor  on  the  Scottish 
throne.1 * 

These  unexpected  events  opened  a new  scene  to  the 
ambition  of  Henry,  who  determined  to  marry  his  son 
Edward  to  the  infant  queen  of  Scotland ; and,  in  con- 
sequence of  that  marriage,  to  demand,  as  natural  tutor 
of  the  young  princess,  the  government  of  the  kingdom. 

He  communicated  his  views  to  the  earl  of  Angus,  and  Dec.  i9. 
to  his  brother,  Sir  George  Douglas,  who  had  long  been 
pensioners  on  his  bounty ; and  to  the  earls  of  Cassilis 
and  Glencairn,  the  lords  Maxwell,  Fleming,  Somerville, 
Oliphant,  and  Gray,  who  had  been  made  prisoners  at 
the  late  battle  of  Solway  Moss.  The  first  through 
gratitude,  the  others  through  the  hope  of  liberty, 
promised  their  concurrence  ; and  both,  as  soon  as  the  jaSa  3 *i. 
latter  had  given  hostages  for  their  return  into  captivity, 
if  the  project  should  fail,  proceeded  with  expedition  to 
Edinburgh. 

There,  soon  after  the  death  of  the  king,  Cardinal 
Beaton  had  published  a will  of  the  deceased  monarch, 
by  which  the  regency  was  vested  in  himself  and  three 
other  noblemen ; but  this  instrument,  whether  it  was  1542. 
real  or  supposititious,  was  disregarded  by  the  lords  as- 
sembled in  the  city.  James  Hamilton,  earl  of  Arran,  Dec.  22. 
and  presumptive  heir  to  the  throne,  was  declared 
governor  during  the  minority  of  the  queen ; and  the 
cardinal  appeared  to  acquiesce  in  an  arrangement, 
which  he  had  not  the  power  to  disturb.  But  this  Jau.  A 

1 Hall,  248 — 255.  Holms.  957.  Herbert,  542,  545,  546.  Leslie, 

432 — 437.  James,  in  a letter  to  Paul  III.,  quoted  by  Mr.  Pinkerton, 

ii.  383,  says  that  the  real  cause  of  the  war  was  his  refusal  to  abandon 

the  communion  of  Rome. 

N 2 


180 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543. 


seeming  tranquillity  vanished  on  the  arrival  of  the 
exiles  and  captives  from  England ; by  whose  agency 
the  Scottish  nobility  was  divided  into  two  powerful 
factions.  The  English  faction  consisted  of  Angus  and 
his  associates,  with  their  adherents ; but  most  of  these 
cared  little  for  the  interests  of  Henry,  provided  they 
could  recover  their  sons  and  relatives,  whom  they  had 
delivered  as  hostages.  Their  opponents  were  guided 
by  the  queen-mother,  the  cardinal,  and  the  earls  of 
Huntley,  Murray,  and  Argyle,  and  could  depend  on 
the  aid  of  the  clergy,  the  enemies  of  religious  innova- 
tion, and  on  the  good  wishes  of  the  people,  hostile 
from  education  and  interest  to  the  ascendancy  of 
England.1  The  new  governor  wavered  between  the 
two  parties.  The  opposition  which  he  had  experienced 
from  the  cardinal  threw  him  at  first  into  the  arms  of 
the  English  faction ; his  conviction  that  the  success  of 
their  plans  would  endanger  his  chance  of  succeeding  to 
the  throne,  naturally  led  him  to  seek  a reconciliation 
with  their  adversaries.  Henry,  indeed,  to  fix  him  in 
his  interest,  offered  to  the  son  of  Arran  the  hand  of 
his  daughter  Elizabeth ; but  the  penetration  of  the 
governor  easily  discovered  that  the  real  object  of  the 
king  was  to  prevent,  what  otherwise  might  in  all  pro- 
bability be  accomplished,  the  marriage  of  that  young 
nobleman  with  the  infant  queen.  At  first,  however, 
he  declared  in  favour  of  Henry,  and  imprisoned  the 
cardinal  on  a fictitious  charge  of  having  persuaded  the 

1 Sir  George  Douglas  told  Sadler,  that  to  obtain  the  government 
for  Henry  was  impossible.  “For,”  quoth  he,  “there  is  not  so  little 
“ a boy  but  he  will  hurl  stones  against  it;  and  the  wives  will  handle 
“ their  distaffs,  and  the  commons  universally  will  rather  die  in  it ; 
“ yea,  and  many  noblemen  and  all  the  clergy  be  fully  against  it.” — 
Sadler’s  State  Papers,  70.  “ The  whole  realm  murmureth,  that  they 

“ would  rather  die  than  break  their  old  league  with  France.” — 
Ibid.  163. 


EFFORTS  OF  HENRY.  181 

duke  of  Guise  to  levy  an  army  for  the  support  of  his 
daughter,  the  queen  dowager,  against  the  claim  of  the 
governor.1  A parliament  was  then  called,  which, 
though  it  approved  the  proposal  of  peace  and  marriage, 
refused,  as  unwarrantable,  the  other  demands  of 
Henry ; which  were,  that  he  should  have  the  custody 
of  the  young  queen,  the  government  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  possession  of  the  royal  castles  during  the 
minority.  The  king  had  received  the  proposals  of 
the  Scottish  envoys  with  indignation  and  scorn  ; and 
despatched  again  his  agent,  Sir  Balph  Sadler,  to 
reprimand  Angus  and  his  associates,  for  their  apathy  in 
the  royal  service,  and  their  breach  of  promise.  They 
replied  that  they  had  obtained  as  much  as  in  the 
present  temper  of  the  nation  it  was  possible  to  obtain ; 
that  if  the  king  would  be  content  for  the  present,  he 
might  afterwards  effect  his  purpose  step  by  step ; but 
that,  if  his  impatience  refused  to  wait,  he  must  invade 
the  kingdom  with  a powerful  army,  and  would  find 
them  ready  to  assist  him  to  the  extent  of  their  power. 
Henry  endeavoured  to  shake  by  bribes  and  threats  the 
resolution  of  the  governor ; but  Arran  was  not  to  be 
diverted  from  the  strict  line  of  duty.  He  then  called 
on  his  Scottish  adherents  to  seize  the  person  of  the 
infant  queen  and  convey  her  to  England  ; but  the 
strength  of  the  fortress  and  the  vigilance  of  the 
governor  bade  defiance  to  both  force  and  treachery. 
The  king’s  obstinacy  at  last  yielded  to  the  conviction, 
that  every  day  added  to  the  strength  of  his  enemies, 
and  after  three  months  of  angry  altercation,  he  con- 

1 This  fictitious  charge  disproves  the  story  so  often  repeated  of  the 
late  king’s  will  having  been  forged  by  the  cardinal.  Had  there  been 
the  least  proof  of  such  a crime,  it  would  have  been  eagerly  brought 
forward  in  justification  of  his  imprisonment. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543. 
March  13. 


March  20. 


July  1. 


182 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  descended  to  sign  two  treaties.  By  the  first,  peace 
a.d.  1543  was  concluded  between  the  kingdoms  ; by  the  second, 
it  was  agreed  that  Mary  should  marry  Edward;  that, 
as  soon  as  she  had  completed  her  tenth  year,  she 
should  be  sent  into  England ; and  that  in  the  mean- 
while six  noblemen  should  be  surrendered  as  hostages 
to  Henry.1 

During  this  protracted  negotiation  Cardinal  Beaton 
had  by  private  treaty  procured  his  liberty ; and  the 
hopes  of  the  French  party  were  kept  alive  by  repeated 
supplies  of  ammunition  and  money  from  France.  But 
nothing  created  greater  alarm  in  the  governor  than 
APril-  the  arrival  of  Matthew  Stuart,  earl  of  Lennox,  who, 
on  the  ground  that  Arran  was  an  illegitimate  child, 
claimed  the  regency  for  himself  as  the  next  in  the 
line  of  succession.  With  his  aid  the  cardinal  secured 
the  northern  division  of  Scotland,  obtained  possession 
of  the  young  queen,  and  removed  her  from  Linlithgow 
to  the  strong  castle  of  Stirling.2  Arran  now  began 
to  seek  a reconciliation ; the  terms  were  easily  ar- 
Sept.  3.  ranged  with  Beaton  ; nine  days  after  the  ratification 
of  the  English  treaty  they  met  as  friends  ; and  the 
Sept.  9.  next  week  assisted  together  at  the  coronation  of  Mary. 
Henry  instantly  determined  upon  war  ;3  and  his  cause 
received  an  accession  of  strength  from  the  hesitation 
and  subsequent  defection  of  Lennox,  whose  enmity  to 

1 Rym.  xiv.  786,  797  ; xv.  4.  Sadler’s  State  Papers,  62 — 275. 

2 Henry,  who  had  before  attempted  to  get  possession  of  her  person 

by  stratagem,  and  now  feared  she  might  be  carried  away  to  France, 
offered  the  governor  the  aid  of  an  English  army,  and  promised,  in 
case  Arran’s  son  should  marry  Elizabeth,  to  make  the  father,  “ by 
“ force  of  our  title  and  superiority,  the  king  of  the  rest  of  Scotland 
“ beyond  the  firth.” — Sadler,  p.  248.  But  the  governor  replied 
that  “ Marry,  all  his  lands  and  living  lay  on  this  side  of  the  firth, 
“ which  he  would  not  gladly  exchange  for  any  living  beyond  the 
“ firth”  (p.  256).  3 Ibid.  308. 


THE  TREATY  BROKEN. 


183 


the  governor  dissolved  his  connection  with  the  car- 
dinal ; and  whose  passion  for  Margaret  Douglas,  the 
daughter  of  Angus,  and  niece  of  Henry,  ultimately 
impelled  him  to  join  the  friends  of  the  king  of  Eng- 
land.1 These  had  bound  themselves  by  a common 
instrument  to  live  and  die  in  defence  of  each  other ; 
but  the  lords  Maxwell  and  Somerville  were  arrested 
by  the  governor,  and  on  the  latter  was  found  a copy 
of  the  bond,  and  a letter  to  Henry  in  which  they 
solicited  his  assistance.  Urged  by  the  representations 
of  Marco  Girimani,  the  papal  legate,  and  of  La  Brosse, 
the  French  ambassador,  the  governor  determined  to 
make  war  on  his  opponents ; and  convened  a parlia- 
ment, in  which  the  adherents  of  England  were  accused 
of  treason,  and  the  late  treaty  was  pronounced  void, 
because  Henry  had  not  only  delayed  to  ratify  it,  but 
had  sanctioned  incursions  across  the  borders,  and  had 
seized  several  merchant-ships,  the  property  of  the 
citizens  of  Edinburgh.2 

Though  Arran  solicited  a renewal  of  the  negotiation, 
the  English  king  was  determined  to  make  him  feel  the 
weight  of  his  resentment.  In  May,  Seymour,  earl  of 
Hertford,  and  uncle  of  Prince  Edward,  arrived  in  the 
Frith  with  an  army  of  ten  thousand  men,  and  required 
the  immediate  surrender  of  the  young  queen.  On  the 
refusal  of  Arran,  he  landed  his  troops  at  Leith ; 
marched  to  Edinburgh,  where  he  was  joined  by  five 
thousand  horse  from  Berwick ; and  the  next  morning 
forced  open  one  of  the  gates.  Four  days  were  devoted 
to  plunder  and  conflagration  : but  the  castle  defied  his 
efforts ; the  governor,  with  Angus,  Maxwell,  and  Sir 
George  Douglas,  whom  he  had  released  from  confine- 
ment, was  actively  employed  in  collecting  troops ; and 

1 Sadlor,  p.  314.  2 Ibid.  275—351.  Leslie,  445—448. 


CHAr. 

hi. 

A.D.  1543. 


Oct.  25. 


/ 


Dec.  3. 


1544- 
May  3. 


May  4. 


May  5. 
May  6. 


184 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap.  Hertford  deemed  it  prudent  to  return  before  bis  re- 
a.d.  1544.  treat  should  be  interrupted  by  a superior  force.  The 
May" 16  se^  ^re  Leith,  demolished  the  pier,  and 

swept  the  coast  on  each  side  the  Frith  as  far  as  Stir- 
ling, sailed  for  Newcastle : the  army  directing  its 
May  18.  route  through  Seton,  Haddington,  and  Dunbar,  gave 
these  towns  to  the  flames,  and  reached  Berwick  with 
inconsiderable  loss.1 

Feb4Si7  The  war  from  this  period  continued  for  two  years. 
Ivers,  the  English  warden  of  the  middle  marches,  lost 
his  life  with  many  of  his  followers  in  an  unsuccessful 
action  at  Ancram ; and  the  governor,  though  aided  by 
five  thousand  French  troops,  was  compelled  to  retire 
from  the  fortress  of  Wark.  Lennox  had  obtained  the 
hand  of  Margaret  Douglas,  on  condition  that  he  should 
surrender  to  Henry  his  castle  of  Dumbarton ; but  the 
governor  and  garrison  expelled  him  with  ignominy, 
and  afterwards  delivered  it  up  to  his  rival.  This  cir- 
cumstance, added  to  the  submission  of  several  of  the 
English  partisans  in  the  western  counties  of  Scotland, 
so  irritated  Henry,  that,  in  a moment  of  passion,  he 
ordered  the  hostages  at  Carlisle  to  be  put  to  death, 
May  30.  and  clandestinely  gave  his  sanction  to  a conspiracy  for 
june^7  assassination  of  the  cardinal.2  At  length  the  Scots 
were  comprehended  in  the  treaty  of  peace  between 
England  and  France,  and  though  the  conditions  of 
that  comprehension  became  the  subject  of  dispute,  the 
remaining  six  months  of  Henry’s  reign  were  not  dis- 
turbed by  open  hostilities.3 

1 Leslie,  450,  451.  Holins.  962,  963.  Journal  of  expedition  in 
“ Illustrations  of  Reign  of  Queen  Mary,”  p.  3. 

2 “ His  highness  reputing  the  fact  not  meet  to  be  set  forward  ex- 
“ pressly  by  his  majesty,  will  not  seem  to  have  to  do  in  it;  and  yet, 
“ not  misliking  the  offer,  thinketh  good  that  they  be  exhorted  to  pro- 
11  ceed.”  We  owe  our  knowledge  of  this  fact  to  Mr.  Tytler,  v.  389. 

3 Rym.  xv.  94,  98.  Epist.  Reg.  Scot.  ii.  354. 


henry’s  QUARREL  WITH  FRANCIS. 


185 


III.  The  reader  will  recollect,  that  the  king  of 
France  had  complained  of  Henry’s  marriage  with 
Anne  Boleyn,  as  of  a violation  of  his  promise ; and 
that  Henry  retorted,  by  objecting  to  Francis  the  sup- 
port which  he  gave  to  the  papal  authority.1  This 
dissension,  though  it  might  weaken,  did  not  dissolve, 
the  friendship  which  had  so  long  subsisted  between 
them ; but  fresh  bickerings  ensued ; the  tempers  of 
the  two  princes  became  reciprocally  soured ; each 
wished  to  chastise  what  he  deemed  the  caprice,  the 
ingratitude,  and  the  perfidy  of  the  other ; and  it  was 
at  last  evident  that  war  would  be  declared  by  the 
first  who  could  persuade  himself  that  he  might  do  it 
with  impunity. 

The  emperor  had  watched,  and  nourished  by  his 
ambassadors,  this  growing  disaffection  of  the  king  of 
England.  After  the  death  of  his  aunt  Catherine,  and 
the  execution  of  her  rival  Anne  Boleyn,  he  contended 
that  as  the  original  cause  of  the  misunderstanding 
between  the  two  crowns  had  ceased  to  exist,  nothing 
ought  to  prevent  the  renewal  of  their  former  friend- 
ship. There  was,  however,  an  objection,  which  for 
some  years  opposed  an  insuperable  barrier  to  his 
wishes.  The  honour  of  the  imperial  family  demanded 

1 Burnet  (iii.  Rec.  84)  had  published  an  instrument,  in  which 
Francis  is  made  to  declare,  that  in  his  opinion,  the  marriage  with 
Catherine  has  been  void  from  the  beginning,  but  that  with  Anne  is 
valid;  that  all  the  judgments  pronounced  by  the  pope  are  false, 
unjust,  and  of  no  effect ; and  then  to  bind  himself  and  his  successors, 
under  the  forfeiture  of  his  or  their  goods  or  chattels,  to  maintain  the 
same  opinion  on  all  occasions.  It  has,  however,  neither  signature 
nor  date ; and  is  evidently  nothing  more  than  a mere  form,  “ de- 
“ vised,”  as  is  said  on  the  back  of  it,  in  England,  but  never  exe- 
cuted in  France.  From  Cardinal  Pole  we  learn,  that  to  Henry’s 
most  earnest  solicitations,  the  French  monarch  replied,  that  he  would 
still  be  his  true  and  faithful  friend,  “ but  only  as  far  as  the  altar.” 
— Pole,  fol.  cviii. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1546. 


186 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  that  the  Princess  Mary  should  be  restored  in  blood,  a? 
a.d.  1546.  the  legitimate  child  of  her  father;  and  the  pride  of 
Henry  refused  to  bend  to  an  act  which  would  be  a 
tacit  acknowledgment  that  he  had  wronged  her  mo- 
ther. An  expedient  was  at  length  adopted  to  the 
satisfaction  of  both  parties.  Mary  was  restored  by  act 
of  parliament  to  her  place  in  the  succession,  but  with- 
out any  formal  mention  of  her  legitimacy ; an  accom- 
modation which  was  brought  about  by  the  necessities 
of  the  emperor  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  resent- 
ments of  the  king  on  the  other.  The  former,  induced 
by  his  losses  in  the  campaign  of  1542,  and  the  latter, 
eager  to  punish  the  interference  of  Francis  in  the 
affairs  of  Scotland,  concluded  a treaty  by  which  it  was 

1543.  agreed,  1 . That  they  should  jointly  require  the  French 
king  to  recede  from  his  alliance  with  the  Turks ; to 
make  reparation  to  the  Christians  for  all  the  losses 
which  they  had  suffered  in  consequence  of  that  alli- 
ance ; to  pay  to  the  king  of  England  the  arrears  of  his 
pension,  and  to  give  to  him  security  for  the  faithful 
payment  of  it  in  future  : 2.  And  that,  if  Francis  did 
not  signify  his  assent  within  forty  days,  the  emperor 
should  reclaim  the  duchy  of  Burgundy,  Henry  the 
possessions  of  his  ancestors  in  France,  and  that  each 
should  be  ready  to  support  his  right  at  the  head  of 
a powerful  army.1 

June.  In  consequence  of  these  engagements  two  heralds. 
Garter  and  Toison  d or,  received  instructions  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  French  court;  but  Francis  refused  to 
listen  to  demands  which  he  deemed  insulting  to  his 
honour ; the  messengers  could  not  obtain  permission 
to  cross  the  borders ; and  the  allied  sovereigns  re- 
solved to  consider  the  conduct  of  their  adversary  as  a 
1 Rym.  xiv.  768 — 780.  Chron.  Catal.  232. 


RUPTURE  WITH  FRANCE, 


187 


denial  of  justice,  and  equivalent  to  a declaration  of  chap. 
war.  The  Imperialists  in  Flanders  having  received  a a.d.  i543. 
reinforcement  of  six  thousand  Englishmen  under  Sir  Au~  „ 
John  Wallop,  formed  the  siege  of  Landreci;  while 
Charles,  with  a more  numerous  force,  overran  the 
duchy  of  Cleves,  and  compelled  the  duke,  the  partisan 
of  France,  to  throw  himself  at  the  feet  of  his  natural 
sovereign.  From  Cleves  the  emperor  proceeded  to  Oct.  20. 
the  camp  before  Landreci ; and  Francis  hastened  at 
the  same  time  to  relieve  the  place.  The  grand  armies 
were  in  presence  of  each  other ; and  a general  and 
decisive  engagement  was  daily  expected  ; but  the 
French  monarch,  having  amused  the  attention  of  the 
enemy  with  an  offer  of  battle,  threw  supplies  of  men 
and  provisions  into  the  town,  and  immediately  with- 
drew. The  Imperialists  were  unable  to  make  any 
impression  on  the  rear  of  the  retreating  army ; the  November. 
English,  who  pursued  with  too  much  precipitation, 
suffered  a considerable  loss.1 

* The  allies  derived  little  benefit  from  this  campaign  ; 
but  Henry  promised  himself  more  brilliant  success  in 
the  next,  in  which  he  intended  to  assume  the  com- 
mand at  the  head  of  a numerous  and  disciplined  army. 

During  the  winter  he  was  visited  by  Gronzaga,  the  Dec.  3r. 
viceroy  of  Sicily,  with  whom  it  was  arranged  that  the 
emperor  should  enter  France  by  Champaign,  the  king 
of  England  by  Picardy ; and  that  both,  instead  of 
besieging  towns,  should  march  with  expedition  to  *g4- 
Paris,  where  they  should  unite  their  forces,  and  from 
the  capital  dictate  the  law  to  their  adversary.  The 
Imperialists  were  the  first  in  the  field ; Luxembourg 
and  Ligny  opened  their  gates ; and  St.  Dizier  sur- 

1 Godwin,  76.  Stowe,  585.  Du  Bellay,  548. 


188 


HENRY  VIII. 


char  rendered  after  a siege  of  six  weeks.1  In  June  the 
a.d.  1544.  first  division  of  the  English  army  landed  at  Calais  ; 

and  in  the  middle  of  July,  Henry  saw  himself  within 
the  French  frontier,  at  the  head  of  30,000  English- 
men and  of  15,000  Imperialists.  Had  he  complied 
with  his  engagement  to  advance  towards  the  capital, 
the  French  monarch  would  have  been  at  the  mercy  of 
the  allies  : hut  the  king  was  seduced  by  the  prospect 
of  conquest ; the  example  of  Charles,  who  had  already 
taken  three  fortresses,  seemed  to  offer  an  apology  for 
his  conduct ; and  he  ordered  the  army  to  form  at  the 
same  time  the  two  sieges  of  Boulogne  and  Montreuil. 
July  25.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  imperial  ambassador  during 
eleven  days  urged  him  to  advance ; or  that  the  em- 
peror, to  give  him  the  example,  avoiding  the  fortified 
towns,  hastened  along  the  right  bank  of  the  Marne 
towards  Paris.  Henry  persisted  in  his  resolution,  and 
was  detained  more  than  two  months  before  the  walls 
of  Boulogne. 

It  chanced  that  in  the  Dominican  convent  at  Sois- 
sons  was  a Spanish  monk,  called  Guzman,  of  the  same 
family  as  the  confessor  of  Charles.  Through  him 
Francis  conveyed  to  the  emperor  his  secret  wish  for 
an  accommodation.  That  prince  immediately  as- 
sented ; conferences  were  opened ; and  a courier  was 
sent  to  receive  the  demands  of  Henry.  But  when  the 
terms  of  the  allies  were  made  known,  they  appeared 
so  exorbitant,  that  the  French  council  advised  their 
sovereign  to  prefer  the  risk  of  continuing  the  war. 
Charles,  during  the  negotiation,  had  not  slackened  the 
sept.  9.  rapidity  of  his  march,  and  was  now  arrived  at  Chateau 
Thierri,  almost  in  the  vicinity  of  Paris.  Francis, 


Godwin,  578,  581. 


REDUCTION  OF  BOULOGNE. 


189 


alarmed  for  the  fate  of  his  capital,  solicited  a renewal  chap. 
of  the  conferences ; and  separate  ambassadors  were  a.d.  1544. 
appointed  to  treat  with  the  emperor  and  with  Henry. 

The  former  of  these  princes  had  many  reasons  to  wish 
for  peace.  His  ally,  the  king  of  England,  showed  no 
disposition  to  join  him  ; the  French  army  between 
him  and  Paris  daily  increased ; and  his  own  forces 
were  without  pay  or  provisions.  In  these  circum- 
stances he  consented  to  renew  the  same  offers  which 
he  had  made,  and  which  Francis  had  refused,  before 
the  war.  During  the  negotiation  the  news  of  the 
surrender  of  Boulogne  arrived.  The  king  of  France  Sepc  *3- 
hastened  to  accept  the  conditions ; and  the  moment 
they  were  signed,  recalled  his  ambassadors  from  the 
English  camp.  By  the  treaty  of  Crespi  the  two  Sept.  19. 
princes  agreed  to  forget  all  former  injuries,  to  restore 
their  respective  conquests,  to  join  their  forces  for  the 
defence  of  Christendom  against  the  Turks,  and  to 
unite  their  families  by  the  marriage  of  Charles,  the 
second  son  of  Francis,  with  a daughter  of  the  emperor, 
or  of  his  brother  Ferdinand  king  of  the  Romans.  Had 
Charles  lived  to  complete  this  marriage,  it  might  have 
been  followed  by  the  most  important  results ; but  he 
died  within  a few  months,  and  the  treaty  of  Crespi 
made  little  change  in  the  existing  relations  among  the 
great  powers  of  Europe.  Henry  having  garrisoned 
Boulogne,  raised  the  siege  of  Montreuil,  and  returned  Sept-  3°- 
to  England.1 

During  the  winter  Francis  had  leisure  to  attend  to 

1 See  the  king’s  letter,  and  his  Journal,  in  Rymer,  xv.  50 — 58  ; 

Du  Bellay,  590,  591  ; Sepulveda,  ii.  503 — 510;  Godwin,  77 — 79; 

Mem.  de  Tavannes,  70.  A general  order  was  given  to  return  thanks 
to  God  for  the  taking  of  Boulogne  “ by  devoute  and  generall  proces- 
“ sion  in  all  the  towns  and  villages.” — The  council  to  Lord  Shrews- 
bury, Sept.  19,  1544. 


190 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap-  the  war  with  his  only  remaining  adversary.  The  plan 
a.d.  1544.  which  he  formed  embraced  two  objects;  to  acquire 
such  a superiority  by  sea,  as  might  prevent  the  trans- 
mission of  succour  to  the  English  forces  in  France; 
and  with  a numerous  army  by  land  to  besiege  and 
reduce,  not  only  Boulogne,  which  he  had  so  lately 
lost,  but  also  Calais,  which  for  two  centuries  had  been 
1545-  severed  from  the  French  crown.  With  this  view,  he 
ordered  every  ship  fit  for  war  to  assemble  in  the  ports 
of  Normandy,  while  a fleet  of  twenty-five  gallies  was 
conducted  by  the  baron  De  la  Garde  from  the  Medi- 
terranean to  the  mouth  of  the  Seine.  To  oppose  his 
design,  fortifications  had  been  raised  on  the  banks  of 
the  Thames,  and  on  the  coasts  of  Kent,  Sussex,  and 
Hampshire ; and  sixty  ships  of  war  had  been  collected 
at  Portsmouth  by  Dudley  Lord  Lisle,  high  admiral  of 
England.  The  French  fleet,  amounting  to  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  sail,  under  the  command  of  Anne- 
Juiy  16.  baut,  left  the  coast  on  the  sixteenth  of  July,  and  on 
July  18.  the  second  day  anchored  at  St.  Helen’s.  Lisle,  who 
had  been  forbidden  to  risk  a close  engagement  with  so 
superior  a force,  after  a brisk  but  distant  cannonade, 
retired  into  the  harbour ; and  Henry,  who  had  re- 
paired to  Portsmouth,  had  the  mortification  to  behold 
a foreign  fleet  braving  him  to  the  face,  and  riding 
triumphant  in  the  Channel.  The  next  day  the  French 
admiral  formed  his  line  in  three  divisions,  and  sent  his 
gallies  to  insult  the  enemy  in  the  mouth  of  the  port. 
During  the  cannonade,  the  Mary  Bose,  carrying  seven 
hundred  men,  was  sunk  under  the  eyes  of  the  king  • 
but  the  moment  the  tide  turned,  the  English  bore 
down  on  the  agressors,  who  instantly  fled  towards 
their  own  fleet.  Annebaut  was  prepared  to  receive 
them ; but  Lisle,  faithful  to  his  instructions,  recalled 


PEACE  WITH  FRANCE. 


191 


liis  ships,  and,  safe  within  the  port,  bore  with  patience 
the  taunts  and  the  triumph  of  his  enemy. 

Foiled  in  these  attempts  to  provoke  a battle,  the 
French  admiral  summoned  a council  of  war,  in  which 
a proposal  to  seize  and  fortify  the  Isle  of  Wight  was 
made  and  rejected;  and  the  next  morning  the  whole 
armament  stood  out  to  sea,  made  occasional  descents 
on  the  coast  of  Sussex,  and  at  length  anchored  before 
Boulogne.  Lisle,  having  received  a reinforcement  of 
thirty  sail  was  ordered  to  follow.  The  hostile  fleets 
soon  came  in  presence  of  each  other ; some  time  was 
spent  in  manoeuvring  to  obtain  the  advantage  of  the 
wind;  and  at  length,  after  the  exchange  of  a few 
shots,  they  separated,  and  retired  into  their  respective 
harbours.1 

This  expedition  might  gratify  the  vanity  of  the 
French  monarch ; but  it  did  not  secure  to  him  what 
he  expected,  an  overwhelming  superiority  by  land. 
He  had  indeed  prevented  the  junction  of  a body  of 
lansquenets  in  the  pay  of  Henry,  had  laid  waste  the 
Pays  d’Oie,  and  had  gained  the  advantage  in  a few 
rencounters.  Yet  he  had  been  unable  to  erect  the 
fortresses,  with  the  aid  of  which  he  expected  to  reduce 
the  garrisons  of  Calais  and  Boulogne  ; and  during  the 
winter  his  army  had  been  thinned  by  the  ravages  of  a 
pestilential  disease.  Both  princes  became  weary  of  a 
war  which  exhausted  their  treasures  without  any  re- 
turn of  profit  or  glory.  A short  armistice  was  employed 
in  negotiations  for  peace ; and  it  was  finally  agreed, 
that  Francis  should  pay  to  Henry  and  his  successors 
the  pension  due  by  the  treaty  of  1525  ; that  commis- 
sioners should  be  appointed  by  the  two  monarchs  to 

1 Du  Bellay,  596.  Mem.  de  Montluc,  xxii.  304 — 344.  State 
Papers,  i.  782 — 834. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1545. 


July  20. 


August  16. 


1546. 
June  7. 


192 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1546. 


-543- 
May  12, 


determine  the  claim  of  the  latter  to  a debt  of  512,022 
crowns ; that  at  the  termination  of  eight  years,  the 
king  of  England  should  receive  the  sum  of  two 
millions  of  crowns  as  a compensation  for  arrears  of 
pensions,  and  the  charges  of  repairing  and  preserving 
the  fortifications  of  Boulogne ; and  that  on  the  pay- 
ment of  these  sums,  that  town,  with  its  dependencies, 
should  he  restored  to  the  king  of  France.1 

It  had  been  hitherto  the  general  opinion,  that 
Henry  was  the  most  opulent  monarch  in  Europe ; his 
late  wars  with  Scotland  and  France  revealed  the  inex- 
plicable secret  of  his  poverty.  The  plate  and  jewels 
which  he  had  collected  from  the  religious  houses,  and 
the  enormous  sums  which  he  had  raised  by  the  sale  of 
their  property,  seemed  to  have  been  absorbed  in  some 
invisible  abyss  : the  king  daily  called  on  his  ministers 
for  money ; and  the  laws  of  the  country,  the  rights  ot 
the  subject,  and  the  honour  of  the  crown,  were  equally 
sacrificed  to  supply  the  increasing  demands  of  the 
treasury.  In  1 543  he  had  obtained  a subsidy  almost 
unprecedented  in  its  amount.  The  clergy  had  given 
him  for  three  years  ten  per  cent,  on  their  incomes, 
after  the  deduction  of  the  tenths  already  vested  in  the 
crown ; and  the  laity  granted  him  a tax  on  real  and 
personal  property  to  be  paid  by  instalments  in  three 
years,  rising  gradually  from  fourpence  to  three  shillings 
in  the  pound.2  But  the  returns  had  disclosed  the 
value  of  each  man’s  estate ; and  soon  afterwards  all 

1 Rymer,  xv.  94.  Mem.  de  Tavannes,  xxvi.  80. 
a The  Rates  were  as  follows  : — 

s.  d.  s.  d. 

From  il.  to  5^,  in  goods  o 4 in  lands,  fees,  and  annuities  o 8 

Do.  5 to  10  o 8 1 4 

Do.  10  to  20 1 4 2 o 

Do.  20  and  upwards  ...  2 o 3 o 

All  foreigners  paid  double  rates. — St.  34  Henry  VIII.  27. 


ADULTERATION  OF  MONEY. 


193 


persons  rated  at  fifty  pounds  per  annum,  received  a 
royal  letter  demanding  the  advance  of  a sum  of  money 
by  way  of  loan.  Prudence  taught  them  to  obey ; but 
their  hope  of  repayment  was  extinguished  by  the 
servility  of  parliament,  which  at  once  granted  to  the 
king  all  those  sums  that  he  had  borrowed  from  any 
of  his  subjects  since  the  thirty-first  year  of  his  reigu.1 
After  this  act  of  dishonesty  it  would  have  been  idle  to 
solicit  a second  loan  ; he  therefore  demanded  presents 
under  the  name  of  a benevolence,  adopting  again  some 
of  the  expedients  which  had  been  attempted  under 
the  administration  of  Wolsey,  and  had  failed  through 
the  spirited  opposition  of  the  people.  But  in  the 
course  of  a few  years  the  bloody  despotism  of  Henry 
had  quenched  that  spirit ; the  benevolence  was  raised 
without  difficulty ; and  the  murmurs  of  the  sufferers 
were  effectually  silenced  by  the  timely  punishment  of 
two  of  the  aldermen  of  London,  who  had  presumed  to 
complain.  One  of  them,  Bichard  Beid,  was  imme- 
diately sent  to  the  army  in  Scotland,  where  he  was 
made  prisoner  in  the  first  engagement,  and  was  com- 
pelled by  his  captors  to  pay  a heavy  fine  for  his  ransom ; 
the  other,  Sir  William  Boach,  was  on  a charge  of 
seditious  words  committed  to  prison,  whence  he  was 
liberated  after  a confinement  of  three  months,  but 
probably  not  before  he  had  appeased  the  king  by  a 
considerable  present.2 

1 Sanders,  203.  State  Pap.  i.  7 66.  Lords’  Journals,  265.  Even 
if  the  king  had  paid  all,  or  any  part,  of  these  sums,  the  money  so 
paid  was  to  be  refunded ; but  the  present  holders  of  the  royal  securi- 
ties could  recover  from  the  sellers  the  consideration  which  had  been 
given  for  them. — St.  45  Henry  VUE.  12. 

* Sanders,  203,  204.  Stowe,  588.  Herbert,  587.  The  sum  thus 
raised  amounted  to  70,72 $1.  18s.  iod. — Strype,  i.  App.  333.  Lon- 
don, York,  Durham.  Northumberland  and  Westmoreland  are  not 
included. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1544 


August  11 


IS4S* 
Jan.  12. 


Jan.  27. 


March  18. 


VOL.  V. 


O 


194 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap.  With  the  same  view,  Henry  adulterated  the  purity 
A-D-  1545-  of  the  coin ; a plan  by  which,  while  he  defrauded  the 
public,  he  created  numberless  embarrassments  in  the 
way  of  trade,  and  involved  his  successors  in  almost 
inextricable  difficulties.  At  his  accession  the  ounce  of 
gold,  and  the  pound  of  silver,  were  each  worth  forty 
shillings  : having  raised  them  by  successive  proclama- 
tions to  forty-four,  forty-five,  and  forty-eight  shillings, 
he  issued  a new  coinage  with  a considerable  quantity 
of  alloy,  and  contrived  at  the  same  time  to  obtain 
possession  of  the  old  money,  by  offering  a premium  to 
those  who  would  bring  it  to  the  Mint.  Satisfied  with 
the  result  of  this  experiment,  he  rapidly  advanced  in 
the  same  career.  Before  the  end  of  the  war  his  coins 
contained  equal  quantities  of  silver  and  of  alloy ; the 
year  after,  the  alloy  exceeded  the  silver  in  the  propor- 
tion of  two  to  one.  The  consequence  was,  that  his 
successors  found  themselves  compelled  to  lower  the 
nominal  value  of  his  shillings,  first  from  twelvepence 
to  ninepence,  and  then  to  sixpence,  and  finally  to 
withdraw  them  from  circulation  altogether.1 

During  these  operations  in  debasing  the  coin,  the 
three  years  allotted  for  the  payment  of  the  last  subsidy 
expired ; and  the  king  again  laid  his  wants  before  his 
Dec.  24  parliament,  and  solicited  the  aid  of  his  loving  subjects. 
The  clergy  granted  fifteen  per  cent,  on  their  incomes, 
during  two  years ; the  laity  two  tenths  and  fifteenths, 
with  an  additional  subsidy  from  real  and  personal  pro- 
perty, which  they  begged  him  to  accept,  “ as  it  pleased 
“ the  great  king  Alexander  to  receive  thankfully  a 
“ suppe  of  water  of  a poor  man  by  the  high  way  side.”2 
As  this,  however,  did  not  satisfy  his  rapacity,  parlia- 

1 Sanders,  204.  Stowe,  587.  Herbert,  191,  572.  Folkes,  27. 
Fleetwood,  53.  2 St.  of  Realm,  1016. 


DANGER  OF  CRANMER. 


195 


ment  subjected  to  his  disposal  all  colleges,  chantries, 
and  hospitals  in  the  kingdom,  with  all  their  manors, 
lands,  and  hereditaments,  receiving  from  him  in  return 
a promise,  that  he  would  not  abuse  the  confidence  of 
his  subjects,  but  employ  the  grant  to  the  glory  of  (tod 
and  the  common  profit  of  the  realm.  This  was  the 
last  aid  given  to  the  insatiate  monarch.  As  early  as  the 
twenty-sixth  year  of  his  reign,  it  was  asserted  by  those 
who  had  made  the  calculation  from  official  documents, 
that  the  receipts  of  the  Exchequer  under  Henry  had 
even  then  exceeded  the  aggregate  amount  of  all  the 
taxes  upon  record,  which  had  been  imposed  by  his 
predecessors.  But  that  sum,  enormous  as  it  must  have 
been,  was  more  than  doubled  before  his  death,  by 
subsidies  and  loans  which  he  was  careful  not  to  repay, 
by  forced  benevolences  and  the  debasement  of  the 
currency,  and  by  the  secularization  of  part  of  the 
clerical,  and  of  the  whole  of  the  monastic  possessions.1 

During  these  transactions  the  court  of  Henry  was 
divided  by  the  secret  intrigues  of  the  two  religious 
parties,  which  continued  to  cherish  an  implacable 
hatred  against  each  other.  The  men  of  the  old  learn- 
ing naturally  looked  upon  Cranmer  as  their  most 
steady  and  most  dangerous  enemy  ; and,  though  he 
was  careful  not  to  commit  any  open  transgression  of 
the  law,  yet  the  encouragement  which  he  gave  to  the 
new  preachers,  and  the  clandestine  correspondence 


1 Etenim  interfui  ipse,  cum  fide  dignissimi,  qui  tabulas  publicas, 
in  quas  rationes  tribntornm  sunt  relatge  vidissent,  et  rationem  iniis- 
sent,  hoc  mihi  ante  aliquot  annos  sanctissime  asseverarent,  ita  se  rem 
habere;  quse  ille  unus  accepit,  majorem  summam  efficere,  quam 
omnia  omnium  tot  retro  sseculis  tributa, — Apol.  Reg.  Poli,  p.  91. 
Defen.  Eccl.  Unit.  fol.  lxxxii.  Barbaro  (Report  to  Venetian  Senate, 
ann.  1551)  gives  the  particulars  of  his  receipts  from  his  thirty-fourth 
to  his  forty-seventh  year,  amounting  to  the  gross  sum  of  10,320,000/. 

o 2 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1545. 


196 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1545. 


which  he  maintained  with  the  German  reformers, 
would  have  proved  his  ruin,  had  he  not  found  a friend 
and  advocate  in  his  sovereign.  Henry  still  retained  a 
grateful  recollection  of  his  former  services,  and  felt  no 
apprehension  of  resistance  or  treason  from  a man  who, 
on  all  occasions,  whatever  were  his  real  opinions  or 
wishes,  had  moulded  his  conscience  in  conformity  to 
the  royal  will.  When  the  prebendaries  of  Canterbury 
lodged  an  information  against  him,  the  king  issued  a 
commission  to  examine,  not  the  accused  but  the  ac- 
cusers ; of  whom  some  were  imprisoned ; all  were 
compelled  to  ask  pardon  of  the  archbishop.1  In  the 
house  of  Commons  Sir  John  Gostwick,  representative 
for  Bedfordshire,  had  the  boldness  to  accuse  him  of 
heresy ; but  the  king  sent  a message  to  the  “ varlet,” 
that  if  he  did  not  immediately  acknowledge  his  fault, 
he  should  be  made  an  example  for  the  instruction  of 
his  fellows.  On  another  occasion  Henry  had  con- 
sented to  the  committal  of  the  archbishop  ; but  after- 
wards he  revoked  the  permission,  telling  the  council 
that  Cranmer  was  as  faithful  a man  towards  him  as 
ever  was  prelate  in  the  realm,  and  one  to  whom  he 
was  many  ways  beholden  ; or,  as  another  version  has 
it,  that  he  was  the  only  man  who  had  loved  his 
sovereign  so  well  as  never  to  have  opposed  the  royal 
pleasure.2  In  like  manner  Gardiner,  from  his  ac- 
knowledged abilities  and  his  credit  with  the  king,  was 
to  the  men  of  the  new  learning  a constant  object  of 

1 Strype’s  Cranmer,  no — 122. 

2 Ibid.  123 — 126.  Sanders,  p.  78.  Unum  esse  tam  suarum 
partium  amantem,  qui  nulla  unquam  in  re  ipsius  defuerit  voluntati. 
Neque  id  solum  praestitit  in  iis  rebus,  quae  Lutberanis  jucunde  ac-  j 
ciderent,  verum  sive  quern  comburi  oportebat  haeresis  nomine,  sive 
sacerdotem  uxore  spoliari,  nemo  erat  Cranmero  in  ea  re  exequenda  . 
diligentior. — Yit.  Cran.  MS.  apud  Le  Grand,  ii.  103.  , 


GARDINER  IS  ACCUSED. 


197 


apprehension  and  jealousy.  To  ruin  him  in  the  royal 
estimation,  it  was  pretended  that  he  had  communi- 
cated with  the  papal  agents  through  the  imperial 
ministers  ; and  that,  while  he  pretended  to  be  zeal- 
ously attached  to  the  interests  of  the  king,  he  had  in 
reality  made  his  peace  with  the  pontiff.  But  it  was 
in  vain  that  the  accusation  was  repeatedly  urged,  and 
that  Gardiner’s  secretary  was  even  tried,  convicted, 
and  executed,  on  a charge  of  having  denied  the  supre- 
macy ; the  caution  of  the  bishop  bade  defiance  to  the 
wiles  and  the  malice  of  his  enemies.  Aware  of  the 
danger  which  threatened  him,  he  stood  constantly  on 
his  guard ; and  though  he  might  prompt  the  zeal,  and 
second  the  efforts  of  those  who  wished  well  to  the 
ancient  faith,  he  made  it  a rule  never  to  originate  any 
religious  measure,  nor  to  give  his  opinion  on  religious 
subjects,  without  the  express  command  of  his  sove- 
reign.1 Then  he  was  accustomed  to  speak  his  mind 
with  boldness ; but  though  he  might  sometimes  offend 
the  pride,  still  he  preserved  the  esteem,  of  Henry,2 

1 Modern  writers  have  ascribed  to  his  counsels  all  the  measures 
adopted  by  Henry  against  the  reformers.  Yet  Gardiner  often  denies 
it  in  his  letters.  “ The  earl  of  Southampton  (Wriothesley)  did,”  he 
says,  “ many  things,  while  he  was  chancellor,  touching  religion, 
“ which  misliked  me  not.  But  I did  never  advise  him  so  to  do,  nor 
“ made  on  him  the  more  for  it,  when  he  had  done.  He  was  one  of 
u whom  by  reason  I might  have  been  bold ; but  I left  him  to  his 
“ conscience.” — Apud  Foxe,  ii.  66. 

54  On  this  subject  I will  transcribe  a passage  from  one  of  his 
letters,  because  it  serves  to  elucidate  the  character  of  the  king. 
“ This  fashion  of  writing  his  highness  (God  pardon  his  soul)  called 
“ whetting  : which  was  not  at  all  the  most  pleasant  unto  me,  yet 
“ when  I saw  in  my  doings  was  no  hurt,  and  sometime  by  the  oc- 
11  casion  thereof  the  matter  was  amended,  I was  not  so  coy  as  always 
“ to  reverse  my  argument : nor,  so  that  his  affairs  went  well,  did  I 
“ ever  trouble  myself  whether  he  made  me  a wanton  or  not.  And, 
u when  such  as  were  privy  to  his  letters  to  me,  were  afraid  I had 
11  been  in  high  displeasure  (for  the  terms  of  the  letters  sounded  so), 
u yet  I myself  feared  it  nothing  at  all ; I esteemed  him,  as  he  was,  a 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1545. 


198 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  who,  unmoved  by  the  suggestions  of  adversaries,  con- 
a.d.  1545.  tinued  to  employ  him  in  affairs  of  state,  and  to  con- 
sult him  on  questions  of  religion.  As  often  indeed  as 
he  was  absent  on  embassies  to  foreign  courts,  Cranmer 
improved  the  favourable  moment  to  urge  the  king  to  a 
further  reformation.  He  was  heard  with  attention ; 
he  was  even  twice  desired  to  form  the  necessary  plan, 
to  subjoin  his  reasons,  and  to  submit  them  to  the  royal 
consideration ; still,  however,  Henry  paused  to  receive 
the  opinion  of  Gardiner ; and,  swayed  by  his  advice, 
rejected  or  suspended  the  execution  of  the  measures 
proposed  by  the  metropolitan.1 
j544-  At  the  death  of  Lord  Audeley,  a zealous  partisan  of 
the  new  teachers,  the  office  of  chancellor  was  given  to 
Lord  Wriothesley,  who,  though  he  affected  an  equal 
friendship  for  the  two  parties,  was  in  reality  attached 
to  the  ancient  faith.  But,  if  the  power  of  the  re- 
formers was  weakened  by  this  change,  their  loss  had 
been  amply  compensated  by  the  influence  of  Henry’s 
sixth  queen,  Catherine  Parr,  relict  of  the  late  Lord 
Latimer  f who  with  her  brother,  now  created  earl  of 

“ wise  prince,  and  whatsoever  he  said  or  wrote  for  the  present,  he 
“ would  afterwards  consider  the  matter  as  wisely  as  any  man,  nor 
“ either  hurt  or  inwardly  disfavour  him  that  had  been  bold  with 
“ him.  Whereof  I serve  for  a proof : for  no  man  could  do  me  hurt 
“during  his  life.  And  when  he  gave  me  the  bishopric  ofWin- 
“ Chester,  he  said  he  had  often  squared  with  me,  but  he  loved  me 
“ never  the  worse ; and  for  a token  thereof  he  gave  me  the  bishopric. 

“ I was  reported  unto  him,  that  I stooped  not,  and  was  stub- 

“ born  : and  he  commended  unto  me  certain  men’s  gentle  nature,  as 
“ he  called  it,  that  wept  at  every  of  his  words  : and  methought  that 
“ my  nature  was  as  gentle  as  theirs;  for  I was  sorry  when  he  was 
“ moved.  But  else  I know,  when  the  displeasure  was  not  justly 
“ grounded  in  me,  I had  no  cause  to  take  thought.” — Ap.  Foxe,  ii.  60. 

1 Herbert,  565,  591.  Strype’s  Cranmer,  130,  136. 

2 The  king  married  her,  after  a widowhood  of  more  than  a year, 
on  the  12th  of  July,  1543.  The  ceremony  was  performed  by  Gar- 
diner, bishop  of  Winchester,  in  the  queen’s  privy  closet  at  Hampton 
Court,  under  license  from  the  archbishop,  who  had  dispensed  with 


QUEEN  CATHERINE  IN  PERIL. 


199 


Essex,  and  her  uncle,  created  Lord  Parr  of  Horton,  chap. 

J . iii. 

zealously  promoted  the  new  doctrines.  But  her  a.d.  1543. 

zeal,  whether  it  was  stimulated  by  confidence  in  her  De~„ 
own  powers,  or  prompted  by  the  suggestions  of  the 
preachers,  quickly  transgressed  the  bounds  of  pru- 
dence. She  not  only  read  the  prohibited  works ; 
she  presumed  to  argue  with  her  husband,  and  to  dis- 
pute the  decisions  of  the  head  of  the  church.  Of  all 
men,  Henry  was  the  least  disposed  to  brook  the 
lectures  of  a female  theologian,  and  his  impatience  of 
contradiction  was  exasperated  by  a painful  indisposi- 
tion, which  confined  him  to  his  chamber.  The  chan- 
cellor and  the  bishop  of  Winchester  received  orders  to 
prepare  articles  against  Catherine  ; but  the  intelligence 
was  immediately,  perhaps  designedly,  conveyed  to  the 
queen,  who,  repairing  to  a neighbouring  apartment, 
fell  into  a succession  of  fits,  and  during  the  intervals 
made  the  palace  ring  with  her  cries  and  lamentations. 

Henry,  moved  with  pity,  or  incommoded  with  the 
noise,  first  sent  his  physician,  and  was  afterwards 
carried  in  a chair,  to  console  her.  In  the  evening  she 
waited  on  him,  in  the  company  of  her  sister,  and 
adroitly  turning  the  conversation  to  the  subject  of 
religion,  took  occasion  to  express  her  admiration  of 
his  learning,  and  the  implicit  deference  which  she  paid 
to  his  decisions.  “ No,  no,  by  St.  Mary,”  he  exclaimed, 

“ I know  you  too  well.  Ye  are  a doctor,  Kate.”  She 
replied,  that  if  she  had  sometimes  presumed  to  differ 
from  him,  it  had  not  been  to  maintain  her  own 
opinions,  but  to  amuse  his  grace  ; for  she  had  ob- 
served, that,  in  the  warmth  of  argument,  he  seemed 
to  forget  the  pain  which  tormented  him.  “ Is  it  so, 

the  publication  of  banns  and  all  contrary  ordinances  for  the  honour 
and  weal  of  the  realm. — See  Chron.  Catal.  238. 


200 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap.  “ sweetheart  ?”  said  Henry;  “ then  we  are  friends 
a.d.  1543.  “ again.”  The  following  morning  the  chancellor  came 
with  a guard  to  take  her  into  custody,  hut  was  re- 
manded with  a volley  of  reproaches ; and  the  queen, 
taught  by  her  past  danger,  was  afterwards  careful  not 
to  irritate  the  theological  sensibility  of  her  husband. 
It  is,  however,  a question  among  the  more  ancient 
writers,  whether  the  king  was  in  earnest.  By  some 
the  proceeding  has  been  represented  as  a scheme  of 
his  own  contrivance,  to  wean  his  wife  from  an  attach- 
ment to  doctrines  which  might  in  the  sequel  conduct 
her  to  the  stake  or  the  scaffold.1 

The  books,  the  perusal  of  which  had  led  the  queen 
into  danger,  had  been  introduced  to  the  ladies  at  court 
through  the  agency  of  two  females,  Anne  Bocher,  and 
Anne  Kyme.  With  Bocher  we  shall  meet  again  in 
the  next  reign,  when  she  will  be  condemned  to  the 
flames  by  Archbishop  Cranmer.  Kyme,  who  had  aban- 
doned her  husband  to  exercise  the  office  of  an  apostle 
June  19.  under  her  maiden  name  of  Askew,  had  been  committed 
to  Newgate  by  the  council,  “ for  that  she  was  very 
“obstinate  and  heady  in  reasoning  on  matters  of 
“ religion.”2  There  she  might  perhaps  have  escaped 
further  notice,  had  not  the  theological  jealousy  of  the 
king  been  provoked  by  the  imprudent  and  contuma- 
cious conduct  of  Dr.  Crome.  He  had  given  offence  by 
a sermon,  in  which  he  maintained  that  no  one  could 
approve  of  the  dissolution  of  monasteries,  and  at  the 
same  time  admit  the  usefulness  of  prayers  for  the 
dead.  Henry  considered  this  assertion  as  a censure 
on  himself ; and  Crome,  to  appease  the  king,  offered 
to  recant  at  St.  Paul's  Cross.  There  he  disappointed 

1 Herbert,  622. 

2 See  Council  Book,  Harl.  MSS.  256,  fol.  224, 


DEATH  OF  ASKEW  AND  OTHERS. 


201 


the  royal  expectation  by  a reassertion  of  the  obnoxious  chap 
doctrine;  was  called  before  the  council  on  that  ac-  a.d.  1543. 
count,  and  subsequently  accused  several  of  bis  friends 
and  advisers.1  Numerous  examinations  followed ; 
those  who  submitted  to  a recantation  were  remanded 
to  prison  ; the  more  obstinate  were  sent  before  the 
ecclesiastical  court,  of  which  the  archbishop  was 
probably  the  chief  judge;2  and  that  court  excom- 
municated them  as  incorrigible  heretics,  and  delivered 
them  over  to  the  civil  power.  Among  the  former  . 
were  Latimer,  and  Crome  himself,  who  by  submission 
escaped  the  flames  ; the  sufferers  were  Askew,3  Adlam,  July  16. 
a tailor,  Otterden,  a priest,  and  Lascelles,  a gentleman 
at  court.  Shaxton,  the  deprived  bishop  of  Salisbury, 
was  to  have  shared  with  them  the  honour  of  martyr- 
dom ; but  his  courage  shrunk  from  the  fiery  ordeal, 
and  he  not  only  recanted,  but  preached  the  sermon  at 

1 State  Papers,  i.  842 — 851.  Burnfet,  ii.  572.  This  persecution 
has  been  attributed  by  some  writers  to  the  king’s  advisers ; but  from 
the  official  correspondence  it  appears  that  they  were  only  agents 
under  him,  carefully  apprizing  him  by  letter  of  the  daily  proceedings, 
and  never  venturing  to  take  any  step  but  by  his  express  order. 

2 See  Anne  Bocher’s  address  to  Cranmer  at  her  trial  in  the  next 
reign. 

3 In  the  narrative  transmitted  to  us  by  Foxe  as  the  composition  of 
this  unfortunate  woman,  she  is  made  to  say:  “My  lord  chancellor 
“ and  Master  Rich  [why  the  name  of  Bishop  Gardiner  has  since  been 
“ substituted  for  Master  Rich,  in  several  editions,  I know  not]  took 
“ pains  to  rack  me  with  their  own  hands,  till  I was  nigh  dead.” — 

Foxe,  ii.  578.  Foxe  himself  adds,  that  when  Knivet  the  lieutenant, 
in  compassion  to  the  sufferer,  refused  to  order  additional  torture,  the 
chancellor  and  Rich  worked  the  rack  themselves.  To  me  neither 
story  appears  worthy  of  credit.  For,  1.  Torture  was  contrary  to  law, 
and  therefore  was  never  inflicted  without  a written  order  subscribed 
by  the  lords  of  the  council.  2.  The  person  who  attended  on  such 
occasions  to  receive  the  confession  of  the  sufferer  was  always  some 
inferior  officer  appointed  by  the  council,  and  not  the  lord  chancellor 
or  other  members  of  that  body.  3.  There  is  no  instance  of  a female 
being  stretched  on  the  rack,  or  subjected  to  any  of  those  inflictions 
which  come  under  the  denomination  of  torture. — See  Mr.  Jardine’s 
“ Reading  on  the  use  of  Torture.” 


202 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1543. 


the  execution  of  his  former  associates,  pitying  their 
blindness,  and  exhorting  them  to  follow  his  example. 
His  conformity  was  rewarded  with  the  mastership  of 
St.  Giles’s  hospital  in  Norwich.1 

As  long  as  Henry  enjoyed  health,  he  was  able,  by 
the  interposition  of  his  authority,  and  by  occasional 
acts  of  severity,  to  check  the  diffusion  of  the  new 
doctrines ; but  as  his  infirmities  increased,  he  found 
it  a more  difficult  task,  and,  in  his  last  speech  to  the 
parliament,  he  complained  bitterly  of  the  religious 
dissensions  which  pervaded  every  parish  in  the  realm. 
It  was,  he  observed,  partly  the  fault  of  the  clergy, 
some  of  whom  were  “ so  stiff  in  their  old  mumpsimus, 
“ and  others  so  busy  in  their  new  sumpsimus,”  that 
instead  of  preaching  the  word  of  God,  they  were  em- 
ployed in  railing  at  each  other ; and  partly  the  fault 
of  the  laity,  whose  delight  it  was  to  censure  the  pro- 
ceedings of  their  bishops,  priests,  and  preachers.  “ If 
“ you  know,’1  he  added,  “ that  any  preach  perverse 
“ doctrine,  come  and  declare  it  to  some  of  our  council, 
“ or  to  us,  to  whom  is  committed  by  God  the  authority 
“ to  reform  and  order  such  causes  and  behaviours ; 
“and  be  not  judges  yourselves  of  your  own  fantas- 
“ tical  opinions  and  vain  expositions ; and  although 
“ you  be  permitted  to  read  holy  scripture,  and 
“ to  have  the  word  of  God  in  your  mother  tongue, 
“ you  must  understand  it  is  licensed  you  so  to  do, 
“ only  to  inform  your  conscience,  and  inform  your 
“ children  and  families,  and  not  to  dispute,  and 
“ to  make  scripture  a railing  and  taunting  stock 
“ against  priests  and  preachers.  I am  very  sorry  to 
“ know  and  hear,  how  irreverently  that  precious  jewel, 

1 Ellis,  iii.  177.  Collier,  ii.  212.  Stowe,  592.  Foxe,  ii.  578. 
State  Pap.  i.  868,  875. 


henry’s  speech  on  religion. 


203 


“ the  word  of  God,  is  disputed,  rhymed,  sung,  and  ohap. 
“jingled  in  every  alehouse  and  tavern,  contrary  to  a.d.  1543 
“ the  true  meaning  and  doctrine  of  the  same ; and  yet 
“ I am  as  much  sorry  that  the  readers  of  the  same 
“ follow  it  in  doing  so  faintly  and  coldly.  For  of  this 
“ I am  sure,  that  charity  was  never  so  faint  among 
“ you,  and  virtuous  and  godly  living  was  never  less 
“ used,  nor  God  himself  among  Christians  never  less 
“ served.  Therefore,  as  I said  before,  be  in  charity 
“ with  one  another,  like  brother  and  brother,  and  love, 

“ dread,  and  serve  God,  to  which  I,  as  your  supreme 
“ head  and  sovereign  lord,  exhort  and  require  you.”1 

The  king  had  long  indulged  without  restraint  in  the 
pleasures  of  the  table.  At  last  he  grew  so  enormously 
corpulent,  that  he  could  neither  support  the  weight  of 
his  own  body,  nor  remove  without  the  aid  of  machinery 
into  the  different  apartments  of  his  palace.  Even  the 
fatigue  of  subscribing  his  name  to  the  writings  which 
required  his  signature,  was  more  than  he  could  bear  ; 
and  to  relieve  him  from  this  duty  three  commissioners  I546 
were  appointed,  of  whom  two  had  authority  to  apply  Augusfc  3*- 
to  the  papers  a dry  stamp,  bearing  the  letters  of  the 
king’s  name,  and  the  third  to  draw  a pen  furnished 
with  ink  over  the  blank  impression.2  An  inveterate 
ulcer  in  the  thigh,  which  had  more  than  once  threat- 
ened his  life,  and  which  now  seemed  to  baffle  all  the 
skill  of  his  surgeons,  added  to  the  irascibility  of  his 
temper ; and  his  imagination  was  perpetually  haunted 
with  apprehensions  for  the  future  safety  of  Edward  his 

1 Hall,  160. 

2 Rym.  xy.  100,  102.  The  names  of  the  commissioners  were 
A.  Denny,  John  Gate,  and  W.  Clerc,  and  their  authority  was  to  last 
from  August  31,  1546,  to  May  10,  1547.  They  were  ordered  to 
deliver  to  the  king  at  the  end.  of  every  month,  a schedule  of  the  in- 
struments stamped,  which  schedules  are  in  the  State  Paper  Office. 


204 


HENEY  VIII. 


chap,  son  and  heir,  a young  prince  who  had  scarcely  com- 
a.d.  1546  pleted  his  ninth  year.  The  king  had  no  near  relation 
of  the  blood  royal,  to  whom  he  could  intrust  the  care 
of  the  boy ; nor  could  Edward’s  natural  guardians,  his 
uncles,  boast  of  any  other  influence  than  what  they 
derived  from  the  royal  favour.  Two  of  these,  Thomas 
and  Edward,  had  for  some  years  resided  at  court : but 
the  former  had  risen  to  no  higher  rank  than  that  of 
knight ; the  latter,  though  he  had  been  created  earl 
of  Hertford,  and  appointed  lord  chamberlain,  was  pos- 
sessed of  little  real  power,  and  unsupported  by  family 
alliances.  They  enjoyed,  however,  one  advantage,  of 
which  the  king  himself  was  probably  ignorant.  They 
were  known  to  favour  the  new  doctrines ; and  all 
those  who  bore  with  reluctance  the  yoke  of  the  Six 
Articles,  looked  impatiently  to  the  commencement  of 
a new  reign,  when  they  hoped  that  the  young  king, 
under  the  guidance  of  his  uncles,  would  not  only  sheath 
the  sword  of  persecution,  but  also  adopt  the  reformed 
creed. 

There  had  for  some  time  existed  a spirit  of  acrimo- 
nious rivalry  between  the  Seymours  and  the  house  of 
Howard.  The  aged  duke  of  Norfolk  witnessed  with 
indignation  their  ascendancy  in  the  royal  favour,  and 
openly  complained  that  the  kingdom  was  governed  by 
new  men,  while  the  ancient  nobility  were  trampled  in 
the  dust.  His  son  Henry,  earl  of  Surrey,  could  not 
forgive  the  earl  of  Hertford  for  having  superseded  him 
in  the  command  of  the  garrison  of  Boulogne;  and  had 
been  heard  to  foretell  that  the  time  of  revenge  was 
not  far  distant.  On  the  one  hand  the  father  and  son 
were  the  most  powerful  subjects  in  the  realm,  and 
allied  by  descent  to  the  royal  family  ; on  the  other, 
though  they  had  strenuously  supported  the  king  in  his 


ARREST  OF  THE  HOWARDS. 


205 


claim  of  the  supremacy,  they  were  on  all  other  points  chap. 
zealous  patrons  of  the  ancient  doctrines.  Hence  the  a.d.  1546. 
ruin  or  depression  of  the  Howards  became  an  object 
of  equal  importance  to  the  uncles  of  the  prince  and 
the  men  of  the  new  learning ; to  those,  that  they 
might  seize  and  retain  the  reins  of  government  during 
the  minority  of  their  nephew ; to  these,  that  they 
might  at  length  throw  from  their  necks  that  intoler- 
able yoke,  the  penal  statute  of  the  Six  Articles  1 

The  rapid  decline  of  the  king’s  health  in  the  month 
of  November  admonished  the  Seymours  and  their 
associates  to  provide  against  his  approaching  death. 
Eepeated  consultations  were  held ; and  a plan  was 
adopted  to  remove  out  of  their  way  the  persons  whose 
power  and  talents  they  had  the  greatest  reason  to  fear, 
the  duke  of  Norfolk  with  his  son,  and  Gardiner  bishop 
of  Winchester.  Of  the  charge  brought  against  the  Dec-  2. 
bishop,  we  are  ignorant.  But  he  prudently  threw  him- 
self on  the  king’s  mercy ; and  Henry,  though  he  did 
not  immediately  receive  him  into  favour,  was  pleased, 
to  the  disappointment  of  his  enemies,  to  accept  his 
submission.2  The  fate  of  the  two  Howards  was  more 
calamitous.  While  the  royal  mind,  tormented  with 
pain,  and  anxious  for  the  welfare  of  the  prince,  was 
alive  to  every  suggestion,  their  enemies  reminded  the 

1 Norfolk  himself  in  the  Tower,  and  ignorant  of  the  cause  of  his 
imprisonment,  seems  to  attribute  it  to  the  reformers.  “ Undoubt- 
“ edly,”  he  says  to  the  king,  “I  know  not  that  I have  offended  any 
“ man,  or  that  any  man  was  offended  with  me,  unless  it  were  such 
“ as  are  angry  with  me,  for  being  quick  against  such  as  have  been 
“ accused  for  sacramentaries.” — Apud  Herbert,  628. 

2 The  occasion  of  the  king’s  displeasure  appears  to  have  been 
a refusal  of  the  bishop  to  assent  to  an  exchange  of  lands  of  his 
bishopric. — St.  Pap.  i.  883.  Gardiner  afterwards  maintained  that 
this  was  the  work  of  a conspiracy  formed  against  him  ; and  offered 
to  prove  his  assertion  by  witnesses  in  a court  of  justice. — Burnet, 
ii.  165. 


206 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  king  of  their  power  and  ambition,  of  their  hatred  of 
a.d.  1546  the  Seymours,  and  of  the  general  belief  that  Surrey 
had  refused  the  hand  of  the  daughter  of  Hertford 
because  he  aspired  to  that  of  the  lady  Mary. 

Henry’s  jealousy  was  alarmed;  the  council  received 
orders  to  inquire  into  their  conduct ; their  enemies 
were  invited  to  furnish  charges  against  them ; and 
every  malicious  insinuation  was  accepted  by  the  cre- 
dulity, and  exaggerated  by  the  fears,  of  the  sick 
monarch,  till  at  last  he  persuaded  himself  that  a 
conspiracy  existed  to  place  the  reins  of  government 
in  the  hands  of  the  Howards  during  his  illness,  and 
to  give  them  the  custody  of  the  prince  in  the  event  of 
his  death.1  The  earl  was  examined  before  the  council 
on  the  same  day  with  the  bishop  of  Winchester.  He 
defended  himself  with  spirit,  and  offered  in  scorn  to 
fight  his  accuser  in  his  shirt.  Soon  afterwards  the 
duke  was  summoned  to  court;  and,  on  his  arrival, 
Dec.  12.  both  father  and  son,  ignorant  of  each  other’s  arrest, 
were  conveyed  about  the  same  time  to  separate  cells 
in  the  Tower. 

The  next  day  the  duke’s  houses,  his  plate  and  all  his 
personal  property,  were  seized  by  the  royal  commis- 
sioners. Not  only  several  of  his  servants,  but  his 
mistress,  Elizabeth  Holland,  and  even  his  daughter, 
the  duchess  of  Richmond,  relict  of  the  king's  natural 
son,  were  sent  in  custody  to  London  to  be  examined 
before  the  council;  and  after  a long  investigation, 
conducted  with  all  that  inquisitorial  rigour  common  in 
this  reign,  the  charges  selected  out  of  the  depositions 
were  laid  before  Henry.  Of  these  the  principal  were, 
that  the  duke  bore  on  his  escutcheon  in  the  first 

1 The  ambassadors  at  foreign  courts  were  instructed  that  such  was 
their  crime. — Herbert,  617. 


EXECUTION  OF  SURREY. 


207 


quarter  the  arms  of  England  with  a label  of  silver, 
which  belonged  of  right  to  the  king’s  son ; that  the 
earl  had  introduced  into  his  the  armorial  bearings  of 
Edward  the  Confessor,  which  had  never  been  borne  by 
his  ancestors;  that  both  had  sought  to  marry  the 
duchess  of  Eichmond  to  the  brother  of  the  earl  of 
Hertford,  “ wishing  her  to  endear  herself  into  the 
*s  king’s  favour,  that  she  might  rule  as  others  had 
“ done;”1  and  that  Surrey  had  said,  “If the  king  die, 
“ who  should  have  the  rule  of  the  prince  but  my  father 

or  I ?”  In  the  judgment  of  Henry  the  two  first 
articles  proved  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Howards 
of  claiming  the  crown,  when  occasion  might  serve,  to 
the  disherison  of  the  prince;  the  others,  an  attempt  to 
rule  the  king  and  his  son,  and  thus  possess  themselves 
of  the  government  of  the  realm.  The  judges,  agreeing 
with  the  king,  pronounced  them  sufficient  to  sustain 
an  indictment  for  high  treason;  and  despatches,  ac- 
cording to  custom,  were  forwarded  to  the  ambassadors 
in  foreign  parts,  stating  that  the  duke  and  his  son  had 
conspired  to  assume  the  government  during  the  king’s 
life,  and  to  seize  the  person  of  the  prince  on  the  king’s 
death.2 

The  nation  had  witnessed  with  surprise  the  arrest 
and  imprisonment  of  these  two  noblemen.  There  was 
no  individual  in  the  realm  who  possessed  more  power- 

1 If  the  reader  recollect  that  the  duchess  was  the  duke’s  daughter, 
the  earl’s  sister,  and  widow  of  the  king’s  son,  will  he  believe  that 
her  father  and  brother  would  advise  her  “to  become  Henry’s 
xi  harlot?”  Yet  this  is  the  interpretation  put  on  her  words  in  the 
paper  laid  before  the  king  ! Probably  she  had  been  a great  favourite 
during  her  husband’s  life,  and  therefore  they  wished  her  to  return 
again  to  court.  It  was  eight  years  since  this  marriage  was  thought 
of. — St.  Pap.  576. 

a Ibid.  i.  889 — 891.  Herb.  264.  But  see,  in  justification  of  the 
earl,  the  patents  of  the  20th  Richard  II.  to  his  ancestor  Thomas 
Mowbray. 


CHAP. 

Ill, 

A.D.  1546. 


208  HENRY  VIII. 

C?nP‘  ^ c^ms  on  gratitude  of  Henry  than  the  duke  of 
a.d.  1546.  Norfolk.  He  had  devoted  a long  life  to  the  service  of 
his  sovereign  ; and  had  equally  distinguished  himself 
in  the  cabinet  and  in  the  field — in  embassies  of  im- 
portance abroad,  and  in  employments  of  difficulty  and 
delicacy  at  home.  His  son  was  a nobleman  of  the 
highest  promise.  To  hereditary  courage  and  the  ac- 
complishments of  a court,  Surrey  added — at  that 
period  no  ordinary  praise — a refined  taste,  and  a 
competent  knowledge  of  the  polite  arts.  His  poems, 
which  delighted  his  contemporaries,  will  afford  pleasure 
to  the  reader  of  the  present  day.  But  services  and 
abilities  weighed  as  nothing  in  the  scale  against  the 
Jau4i3  interests  of  the  opposite  party.  As  soon  as  the 
holidays  were  over,  the  earl,  as  a commoner,  was 
arraigned  at  Guildhall  on  a charge  of  having  quartered 
on  his  shield  the  arms  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  In 
an  eloquent  and  spirited  defence,  he  showed  that  he 
had  long  borne  those  arms  without  contradiction,  and 
that  they  had  been  assigned  to  him  by  a decision  of 
the  heralds.  But  the  fact  was  admitted ; the  court 
Jan.  i9.  pronounced  it  sufficient  evidence  that  he  aspired  to 
the  throne;  and  the  jury  found  him  guilty.  Six  days 
later  this  gallant  and  accomplished  nobleman  perished 
on  the  scaffold.1 

But  it  was  still  more  difficult  to  discover  matter 
against  the  father.  For  some  weeks  after  his  arrest 
the  duke  was  ignorant  of  the  charge  to  be  adduced 
against  him.  It  was  in  vain  that  by  repeated  letters 
he  requested  to  be  confronted  with  his  accusers,  who- 
ever they  might  be,  in  presence  of  the  king,  or  at  least 
of  the  council.2  At  length,  after  many  private  examina- 

1 See  the  indictment  in  Nott’s  Life  of  Surrey. 

2 “lam  sure,”  he  says  to  the  king,  “ some  great  enemy  of  mine 


ATTAINDER  OF  NORFOLK. 


209 


tions,  he  consented  to  sign  a confession,  which,  to  chap. 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  will  appear  a convincing  a.d.  1547. 
proof  of  his  innocence.  In  it  he  acknowledged  that,  s~12 
during  his  service  of  so  many  years,  he  had  communi- 
cated occasionally  to  others  the  royal  secrets,  contrary 
to  his  oath ; that  he  had  concealed  the  treasonable  act 
of  his  son  in  assuming  the  arms  of  Edward  the  Con- 
fessor; and  that  he  had  himself  treasonably  borne  on 
his  shield  the  arms  of  England,  with  the  difference  of 
a label  of  silver,  the  right  of  Prince  Edward.1 

If  by  this  submission  the  duke  hoped  to  appease  the 
royal  displeasure,  he  deceived  himself ; in  another 
attempt  to  defeat  the  rapacity  of  his  enemies,  he 
proved  more  successful.  They  had  already  elicited 
a promise  from  Henry,  that  the  spoils  of  their  victim 

“ hath  informed  your  majesty  of  some  untrue  matter  against  me. 

“ Sir,  God  doth  know  that  in  all  my  life  I never  thought  one  untrue 
“ thought  against  you,  or  your  succession;  nor  can  no  more  judge 
“ or  cast  in  my  mind  what  should  be  laid  to  my  charge,  than  the 
“ child  that  was  born  this  night.” — “ Most  noble  and  sovereign  lord, 

11  for  all  the  old  service  I have  done  you  in  my  life,  be  so  good  and 
“ gracious  a lord  unto  me,  that  either  my  accusers  and  I together 
“ may  be  brought  before  your  royal  majesty,  or  if  your  pleasure 
11  shall  not  be  to  take  that  pains,  then  before  your  council.” — Herb. 

627,  628.  In  another  he  repeats  his  request  to  be  confronted  with 
his  accusers.  “ My  desire  is  to  have  no  more  favour  showed  to  me, 

“ than  was  showed  to  Cromwell,  I being  present.  He  was  a false 
“ man ; but  surely  I am  a true  poor  gentleman.” — Burnet,  iii.  Re- 
cords, 190.  He  was  examined  whether  he  had  not  written  in  cipher 
to  others,  whether  he  had  not  said  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  could 
dissolve  the  leagues  between  princes,  whether  he  was  not  privy  to  an 
overture  for  an  accommodation  with  the  bishop  of  Rome  made  by 
Gardiner,  and  what  were  the  contents  of  a letter  written  by  him 
formerly  to  the  bishop  of  Hereford,  and  burnt  after  the  death  of  that 
prelate  by  order  of  the  bishop  of  Durham.  He  answered  the  three 
first  questions  in  the  negative ; the  letter  he  said  contained  the 
opinion  of  the  northern  men  respecting  Cromwell,  but  did  not  so 
much  as  mention  the  king.” — Ibid.  189. 

1 The  confession  is  in  Herbert,  629.  In  the  “ Memorials,  &c.”  of 
the  “ Howard  family,”  by  Mr.  Howard  of  Corby,  it  is  shown  that 
his  ancestors  had  borne  these  arms  from  the  time  of  Thomas  of 
Brother  ton,  son  of  Edward  I. 

VOL.  V. 


P 


210 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  should  in  certain  proportions  be  shared  among  them.1 
a.d.  1547.  But  Norfolk,  sensible  that  his  estate,  if  it  were  pre- 
served entire,  might  be  more  easily  recovered  by  his 
family,  sent  a petition  to  the  king,  representing  it  as 
“ good  and  stately  gear/’  and  requesting,  as  a favour, 
that  it  might  be  settled  on  Prince  Edward  and  his 
heirs  for  ever.  The  idea  pleased  the  sick  monarch. 
He  assented  to  the  petition ; and,  to  satisfy  his 
favourites,  promised  them  an  equivalent  from  some 
other  source.  This  disappointment,  however,  did 
not  retard  their  proceedings  against  their  prisoner. 
Jan.  18.  Instead  of  arraigning  him  before  his  peers,  they 
brought  into  the  house  of  Lords  a bill  of  attainder, 
founded  on  his  confession.  It  had  been  customary 
on  such  occasions  to  wait  for  the  royal  assent  till  the 
close  of  the  session.  But  two  days  after  the  bill  had 
Jan.  26.  passed,  the  king  suddenly  grew  worse ; the  prece- 
dent established  in  the  case  of  Catherine  Howard  was 
adopted ; and  the  next  morning  the  chancellor  in- 
formed the  two  houses,  that  his  majesty,  anxious  to 
fill  up  the  offices  held  by  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  pre- 
paratory to  the  coronation  of  the  prince,  had  appointed 
certain  lords  to  signify  his  assent  to  the  act  of  at- 
jan.  27.  tainder.  The  commission  under  the  sign  manual  was 
then  read ; the  royal  assent  was  given  in  due  form  ;2 

1 He  ordered  Paget  to  “ tot  upon  the  Earl  of  Hertford”  lands  to 
the  value  of  6661. 13s.  4d.  per  annum  ; Sir  Thomas  Seymour  300 1., 
Sir  William  Herbert  2 661.  13s.  4d.,  the  lords  Lisle,  St.  John,  and 
Russell,  and  Sir  Anthony  Denny,  200Z.  each,  and  the  lord  Wrio- 
thesley,  100/.  They  were  all  dissatisfied  with  the  small  amount  of 
these  grants. — Burnet,  ii.  6,  out  of  the  Council  Book. 

2 Burnet  (i.  348)  tells  us  thatCranmer,  though  the  king  was  so  near 
his  death,  withdrew  to  Croydon,  that  he  might  not  concur  in  the  act 
of  attainder,  both  on  account  of  its  injustice,  and  because  he  and  the 
duke  were  personal  enemies.  These  might  indeed  have  been  reasons 
why  he  should  abstain  from  giving  his  vote ; but  that  they  had  no 
weight  with  the  archbishop,  is  plain  from  the  Journals,  which  inform 


THE  KING’S  DEATH. 


211 


and  an  order  was  despatched  to  the  lieutenant  of  the 
Tower  to  execute  his  prisoner  on  the  following  morn- 
ing. Such  indecent  haste,  at  a time  when  the  king 
was  lying  in  the  agonies  of  death,  warranted  a suspicion 
that  there  were  other  persons  besides  Henry  who 
thirsted  for  the  blood  of  the  duke.  But  Providence 
watched  over  his  life.  Before  the  sun  rose,  Henry 
was  dead.  The  execution  was  accordingly  suspended  ; 
and  in  the  reign  of  Mary  the  attainder  was  reversed, 
on  the  ground  that  the  act  of  which  he  was  accused 
was  not  treason,  and  that  Henry  had  not  signed  the 
commission,  in  virtue  of  which  his  pretended  assent 
had  been  given.1 

Of  the  king’s  conduct  during  his  sickness,  we  know 
little.  It  is  said  that  at  the  commencement  he  be- 
trayed a wish  to  be  reconciled  to  the  see  of  Home  ; 
that  the  other  bishops,  afraid  of  the  penalties,  evaded 
the  question ; but  that  Gardiner  advised  him  to  con- 
sult his  parliament,  and  to  commit  his  ideas  to  writing. 
He  was  constantly  attended  by  his  confessor,  the 
bishop  of  Bochester,  heard  mass  daily  in  his  chamber, 
and  received  the  communion  under  one  kind.  About 
a month  before  his  death  he  endowed  the  magnificent 
establishment  of  Trinity  College  in  Cambridge,  for  a 
master  and  sixty  fellows  and  scholars ; and  afterwards 
re-opened  the  church  of  the  Grey  Friars,  which,  with 
St.  Bartholomew’s  Hospital,  and  an  ample  revenue,  he 
gave  to  the  city  of  London. 

us  that,  instead  of  absenting  himself,  as  Burnet  would  persuade  us,  he 
attended  in  his  place  every  time  the  bill  was  read,  and  on  the  day  on 
which  it  received  the  royal  assent. — Journals,  285,  286,  287,  289. 

1 Lords’  Journals,  289.  Herbert,  623 — 631.  Burnet,  i.  345 — 
348.  By  the  act  35  Henry  VIII.  cap.  21,  the  king’s  signature  with 
his  own  hand  was  required  to  such  commission ; this,  however,  was 
not  signed  with  his  own  hand,  but  only  stamped. — St.  Pap.  i.  898. 

p 2 


GHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


Jan.  28. 


1546. 
Dec.  11. 


4547- 
Jan.  3. 


212 


HENRY  Till. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


Of  his  sentiments  on  his  death-bed  nothing  can  be 
asserted  with  any  degree  of  confidence.  One  account 
makes  him  die  in  the  anguish  of  despair ; according 
to  another  he  refused  spiritual  aid  till  he  could  only 
reply  to  the  exhortation  of  the  archbishop  by  a squeeze 
of  the  hand  ; while  a third  represents  him  as  expiring 
in  the  most  edifying  sentiments  of  devotion  and  re- 
pentance.1 He  died  on  Friday,  the  28th  of  January, 
about  two  in  the  morning.2 

Here  the  reader  may  pause  to  notice,  as  far  as  the 
particulars  have  transpired,  the  secret  machinations  of 
the  men  who  during  so  many  weeks  had  surrounded 
the  bed  of  the  sick  and  dying  monarch.  On  Christmas* 
day  the  violence  of  his  fever  had  abated;  and  the 
next  evening,  sending  for  his  will,  which  had  already 
been  drawn  by  the  chancellor,  he  ordered  several  alter- 
ations to  be  made  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  Hert- 
ford and  of  five  others.  Of  these  alterations  the  most 
important,  whether  they  were  the  result  of  his  own 
judgment,  or  had  been  suggested  by  the  party  around 
him,  had  for  their  object  to  weed  out  of  the  list  of  his- 
executors  the  persons  most  obnoxious  to  his  present 
favourites ; namely,  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  being  then 
a prisoner  in  the  Tower  under  a charge  of  high  treason, 
Gardiner,  bishop  of  "Winchester,  because  he  was  “too 

1 Plusieurs  gentils-hommes  Anglois  m’ont  asseure  qu’il  eut  belle 
repentance,  et  entre  lez  autres  choses  de  l’injure  et  crime  commise 
contre  la  dicte  royne  (meaning  Anne  Boleyn). — Thevet,  Cosmog.  1. 
xvi.  quoted  by  O.  E.  in  reply  to  N.  D.  anno  1600,  p.  58. 

2 Journals,  291.  Rym.  xv.  123.  “ These  be  to  signify  to  you 

“ that  our  late  sovereign  lord  the  king  departed  at  Westminster  upon 
“ Friday  last,  the  28th  of  this  instant  January,  about  two  of  the 
“ clock  in  the  morning ; and  the  king’s  majesty  that  now  is,  pro- 
“ claimed  king  this  present  last  day  of  the  same  month.” — The  earl 
of  Sussex  to  the  countess,  apud  Strype,  ii.  11.  It  is,  however,  plain 
that  this  is  no  more  than  a repetition  of  the  report  circulated  by  the 
council. 


THE  KING'S  WILL.  213 

wilful,5’  and  Thirlby,  bishop  of  Westminster,  because 
he  was  “ schooled  by  Gardiner.551  After  these  amend- 
ments, the  will  might  be  divided  into  three  parts.  By 
one,  the  king  provided  for  the  interment  of  his  body, 
the  celebration  of  masses,  and  the  distribution  of  alms 
for  the  benefit  of  his  soul.  By  a second  he  limited 
the  succession,  in  default  of  issue  by  his  children 
Edward,  Mary,  and  Elizabeth,  to  the  descendants  of 
his  younger  sister  Mary,  the  French  queen,  tacitly 
excluding  the  Scottish  line,  the  issue  of  his  eldest 
sister  Margaret,  the  queen  of  Scotland.  By  the  third 
he  appointed  sixteen  individuals,  Hertford,  and  par- 
tisans of  Hertford,  executors  of  his  will,  and  privy 
councillors  of  his  son  Edward,  giving  to  them  full 
power  to  choose  a wife  for  the  young  king,  to  govern 
the  kingdom  in  his  name,  and  to  confer  all  offices  in  the 
gift  of  the  crown,  till  that  prince  should  have  completed 
his  eighteenth  year.  Such  powers  had,  indeed,  been 
conferred  upon  him  by  parliament  in  the  twenty-eighth 
and  thirty-fifth  years  of  his  reign  ; but  these  statutes 
imperatively  required  that  the  instrument,  by  which 
he  exercised  them,  should  be  signed  by  him  with  his 
own  hand.  When,  however,  the  amended  copy  of  the 
will  was  laid  before  him  for  execution,  he  refused, 
through  inability  perhaps,  or  indecision,  or  caprice,  to 
affix  his  signature.  Time  rolled  on,  he  became  daily 
more  feeble  and  incapable ; still  he  persisted  in  the 
refusal  till  within  a day  or  two  of  his  death,  and  then 
gave  orders  that  the  will  should  be  stamped  by  William 
Clerc,  and  delivered  it  in  that  state  to  the  earl  of 
Hertford.2  As  far  as  regarded  its  principal  provisions, 

1 Foxe,  815,  first  edition. 

v 3 This  will  was  deposited  by  order  of  the  council  in  the  treasury 
of  the  Exchequer  on  the  9th  of  March,  1 547  ; and  thence  transferred, 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


214 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

ITI. 

A.D.  1547. 


the  absence  of  liis  signature  made  it  a nullity ; but 
ten  gentlemen  belonging  to  the  court  bad  been  called 
in  as  witnesses  and  were  artfully,  perhaps  to  conceal 
the  defect,  led  to  attest  that  it  bad  been  signed  by  the 
king  with  bis  own  hand  in  their  presence.1  The  earl 

about  fifty  years  afterwards,  to  the  chapter-house, Westminster,  where 
it  still  remains.  It  bears  the  signature  Henry  R.  at  the  beginning 
and  at  the  end.  From  both  signatures  having  been  marked  with  ink, 
Mr.  Hallam  conceived  that  they  were  made  by  Henry  himself,  and 
thence  concluding  that  the  will  was  signed  in  conformity  with  the 
statutes,  declares,  “it  to  be  of  course  extremely  doubtful  whether 
“ James  I.,  or  any  of  his  posterity,  were  legitimate  sovereigns  in  the 
“ sense  which  that  word  ought  to  bear.” — Constit.  Hist.  i.  c.  vi. 

But,  1.  It  cannot  be  inferred  that  the  signatures  were  made  with 
the  king’s  hand,  from  the  fact  that  the  characters  are  evidently 
written  with  a pen,  because  it  was  the  duty  of  the  commissioners  to 
trace  with  a pen  and  ink  the  impression  previously  left  by  the  dry 
stamp. — See  p.  203. 

2.  It  is  moreover  certain  that  the  signature  was  stamped.  In  the 
schedule  drawn  up  by  Clerc,  one  of  the  commissioners  of  the  stamp, 
and  printed  at  the  end  of  vol.  i.  of  the  State  Papers,  with  this  title, 
“ Hereafter  ensueth  a bridgment  of  all  such  billes,  which  the  king’s 
“ majesty  caused  me  to  stamp  with  his  highnes  secret  stamp  at 
“ dy verse  tymes  and  places  in  this  moneth  of  Januarie,  anno  3S 
“ regni,  in  the  presence  of  Sir  Anthonie  Dennye,  knyght,  and  Mr. 
“ John  Gate,  esquier”  (see  p.  203,  before),  is  the  following  entry  : — 
“ Your  majesties  last  will  and  testament,  bearing  date  at  West- 
“ minster  the  thirtie  day  December  last  past,  written  in  a book  of 
“ paper,  signed  above  in  the  beginning,  and  beneth  in  th’  end,  and 
“ sealed  with  the  signet  in  the  presence  of  th’  erl  of  Hertford,  Mr. 
“ secretarie  Paget,  Mr.  Denny,  and  Mr.  Harbert,  and  also  in  the 
“ presence  of  certain  other  persons,  whose  names  ar  subscribed 
“ with  their  own  hands  as  witnesses  to  the  same,  which  testament 
“ your  majesty  delyvered  then  in  our  sights  with  your  own  hand  to 
“ the  said  erle  of  Hertforde  as  your  owne  dede,  last  will  and  testa- 
“ ment,  revoking  and  annulling  all  other  your  highnes  former  willes 
“ and  testaments.”  This  entry  sets  that  question  at  rest. 

I have  stated  that  the  will  was  not  executed  till  a short  time  before 
the  king  expired.  This  also  appears  plain  from  Clerc’s  schedule ; 
for  the  number  of  instruments  which  he  stamped  “ at  divers  times 
“ in  the  month  of  January,”  and  which  he  entered  in  order,  amounted 
to  eighty-six,  of  which  eighty -four  were  stamped  before  the  will,  and 
only  one  afterwards,  on  the  27th,  but  a few  hours  before  the  king’s 
death. — Lords’  Journals,  i.  289.  State  Papers,  i.  892. 

1 The  will  concluded  in  the  following  manner  : — “ We  have  signed 
“ it  with  our  hand  in  our  Palys  of  Westminster,  the  thirtie  day 


THE  CHANCELLOR'S  SPEECH. 


215 


then  took  the  will,  as  if  it  had  been  a personal  trust, 
into  his  own  custody,  to  the  exclusion  of  his  colleagues; 
and  the  moment  that  Henry  expired,  set  out  for 
Hertford  to  announce  the  intelligence  to  the  young 
Edward,  who  then  resided  in  the  castle  of  that  town. 

There  still  remained  a considerable  difficulty  to 
be  surmounted.  How  could  the  executors  assume 
the  government  of  the  kingdom,  unless  they  openly 
brought  forward  the  instrument  from  which  they 
pretended  to  derive  their  authority  ? And  if  that 
instrument  were  brought  forward  openly,  in  what 
manner  were  they  to  guard  against  a discovery  that 
the  royal  signature  had  been  formed  with  the  stamp, 
and  not  written  with  the  king’s  own  hand  ? It  was 
resolved  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  will  without 
submitting  it  to  any  man’s  inspection,  to  exhibit  it  in 
parliament,  and  at  the  proclamation  of  the  new  sove- 
reign, but  to  read  from  it  those  passages  only  which 
circumstances  might  require.  A messenger  was  de- 
spatched the  same  day  from  the  council  to  * the  earl, 
who  signified  his  approval  of  the  plan,  recommended 
the  utmost  caution  in  the  selection  of  extracts  for 
publication,  and  transmitted  to  his  co-executors  the 
key  of  the  depository,  in  which  he  had  placed  the 
important  instrument.1 

By  the  king’s  death  parliament  was  dissolved ; but 
it  did  not  suit  the  convenience  of  the  party  to  make 
that  event  public.  On  Thursday,  a few  hours  before 

“ of  December,  in  the  yere  of  our  Lord  1546. — Being  present  and 
“ called  to  be  witnesses  these  persons  which  have  written  their 
“ names  hereunder.”  Then  follow  the  signatures  of  ten  persons 
called  in,  who,  ignorant  of  this  passage,  could  only  bear  witness  to 
what  they  had  seen,  the  stamping  and  delivering  of  the  will. — 
Rymer,  xv.  117. 

1 See  Hertford’s  letter  written  the  next  day  at  three  in  the 
morning,  in  Ty tier’s  Edward  and  Mary,  i.  15. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  i547. 


21G 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


the  time  when  he  is  said  to  have  died,  the  royal  assent 
had  been  given  to  the  attainders  of  the  duke  of 
Norfolk  and  his  son  ; and  the  houses  had  been  ad- 
journed to  the  Saturday  following.  On  that  day  they 
met  as  usual;  the  business  of  both  was  transacted 
after  the  accustomed  manner ; and,  probably  to  carry 
on  the  deception,  a bill  was  sent  from  the  Lords  to  the 
Commons  to  secure  a grant  of  lands  to  Sir  William 
Paget,  the  king’s  principal  secretary.  Nothing  had 
yet  transpired  respecting  Henry’s  death  ; no  suspicion 
of  that  event  was  hinted  in  parliament,  and  Wrio- 
thesley,  the  chancellor,  boldly,  as  if  he  knew  that  the 
king  was  still  living,  adjourned  the  house  to  the 
Monday  following.  + 

On  that  day  he  sent  for  the  Commons  to  the  house 
of  Lords,  and  announced  to  them  “ the  loss  of  their 
“ good  master,”  who  had  died  on  the  preceding 
Friday.  But  he  could  proceed  no  further.  His 
utterance  now  failed  him ; the  tears  rolled  down  his 
cheeks ; and  sobs  and  sighs  burst  in  sympathy  from 
every  part  of  the  hall.  After  this  outbreak  of  feeling 
he  resumed  his  speech.  “ Their  beloved  monarch,” 
he  added,  “ had  not  been  unmindful  of  them  ; he  had 
“ amply,  by  his  last  will  and  testament,  provided  for 
“ their  welfare  and  for  the  government  of  the  kingdom 
during  the  minority  of  his  successor.”  Sir  William 
Paget  followed  immediately,  holding  out  the  will 
itself,  and  reading  from  it  occasional  passages  to 
gratify  their  curiosity : those  passages  principally 
which  limited  the  succession,  recorded  the  names 
of  the  individuals  appointed  executors  to  Henry  and 
privy  councillors  to  his  son,  and  detailed  the  powers 
with  which  they  were  invested,  the  manner  of  dis- 
1 Lords’  Journals,  i.  290. 


CHARACTER  OF  HENRY. 


217 


charging  the  personal  debts  of  the  late  king,  and  the 
legacies  in  money  which  he  had  left  to  his  servants. 
When  Paget  had  done,  the  chancellor  gave  to  the 
Commons  license  to  depart,  but  requested  the  Lords 
to  remain  in  the  capital,  that  they  might  welcome 
their  young  sovereign  on  his  arrival,  and  give  their 
attendance  at  his  coronation.1  After  this  exhibition 
it  could  not  be  expected  that  any  man  would  dispute 
the  existence  of  the  will,  or  venture  to  call  for  proof 
that  it  had  been  executed  in  strict  conformity  with 
the  statutes. 

We  may  now  return  to  the  defunct  monarch.  To 
form  a just  estimate  of  the  character  of  Henry,  we 
must  distinguish  between  the  young  king,  guided  by 
the  counsels  of  Wolsey,  and  the  monarch  of  more 
mature  age,  governing  by  his  own  judgment,  and  with 
the  aid  of  ministers  selected  and  fashioned  by  himself. 
In  his  youth  the  beauty  of  his  person,  the  elegance  of 
his  manners,  and  his  adroitness  in  every  martial  and 
fashionable  exercise,  were  calculated  to  attract  the 
admiration  of  his  subjects.  His  court  was  gay  and 
splendid ; and  a succession  of  amusements  seemed 
to  absorb  his  attention ; yet  his  pleasures  were  not 
permitted  to  encroach  on  his  more  important  duties  ; 
he  assisted  at  the  council,  perused  the  despatches,  and 
corresponded  with  his  generals  and  ambassadors  ; nor 
did  the  minister,  trusted  and  powerful  as  he  was,  dare 
to  act,  till  he  had  asked  the  opinion,  and  taken  the 
pleasure  of  his  sovereign.  His  natural  abilities  had 
been  improved  by  study ; and  his  esteem  for  literature 
may  be  inferred  from  the  learned  education  which  he 
gave  to  his  children,  and  from  the  number  of  eminent 
scholars  to  whom  he  granted  pensions  in  foreign 
1 Lords’  Journals,  i.  291. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


218 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


'states,  or  on  whom  he  bestowed  preferment  in  his 
own.  The  immense  treasure  which  he  inherited  from 
his  father  was  perhaps  a misfortune ; because  it  en- 
gendered habits  of  expense  not  to  be  supported  from 
the  ordinary  revenue  of  the  crown  ; and  the  soundness 
of  his  politics  may  be  doubted,  which,  under  the  pre- 
tence of  supporting  the  balance  of  power,  repeatedly 
involved  the  nation  in  continental  hostilities.  Yet 
even  these  errors  served  to  throw  a lustre  round  the 
English  throne,  and  raised  its  possessor  in  the  eyes 
of  his  own  subjects  and  of  the  different  nations  of 
Europe.  But  as  the  king  advanced  in  age,  his  vices 
gradually  developed  themselves ; after  the  death  of 
Wolsey  they  were  indulged  without  restraint.  He 
became  as  rapacious  as  he  was  prodigal ; as  obstinate 
as  he  was  capricious  ; as  fickle  in  his  friendships,  as  he 
was  merciless  in  his  resentments.  Though  liberal  of 
his  confidence,  he  soon  grew  suspicious  of  those  whom 
he  had  trusted ; and,  as  if  he  possessed  no  other  right 
to  the  crown  than  that  which  he  derived  from  the 
very  questionable  claim  of  his  father,  he  viewed  with 
an  evil  eye  every  remote  descendant  of  the  Planta- 
genets  ; and  eagerly  embraced  the  slightest  pretexts  to 
remove  those  whom  his  jealousy  represented  as  future 
rivals  to  himself  or  his  posterity.  In  pride  and  vanity 
he  was  perhaps  without  a parallel.  Inflated  with  the 
praises  of  interested  admirers,  he  despised  the  judg- 
ment of  others;  acted  as  if  he  deemed  himself  in- 
fallible in  matters  of  policy  and  religion ; and  seemed 
to  look  upon  dissent  from  his  opinion  as  equivalent  to 
a breach  of  allegiance.  In  his  estimation,  to  submit 
and  obey  were  the  great,  the  paramount  duties  of 
subjects  ; and  this  persuasion  steeled  his  breast  against 
remorse  for  the  blood  which  he  shed,  and  led  him 


THE  PEERS  IMPOVERISHED. 


219 


to  trample  without  scruple  on  the  liberties  of  the 
nation. 

When  he  ascended  the  throne,  there  still  existed  a 
spirit  of  freedom,  which  on  more  than  one  occasion 
defeated  the  arbitrary  measures  of  the  court,  though 
directed  by  an  able  minister,  and  supported  by  the 
authority  of  the  sovereign ; but  in  the  lapse  of  a few 
years  that  spirit  had  fled,  and  before  the  death  of 
Henry,  the  king  of  England  had  grown  into  a despot, 
the  people  had  shrunk  into  a nation  of  slaves.1  The 
causes  of  this  important  change,  in  the  relations  be- 
tween the  sovereign  and  his  subjects,  may  be  found 
not  so  much  in  the  abilities  or  passions  of  the  former, 
as  in  the  obsequiousness  of  his  parliaments,  his  as- 
sumption of  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  and  the 
servility  of  the  two  religious  parties  which  divided  the 
nation. 

I.  The  house  of  Peers  no  longer  consisted  of  those 
powerful  lords  and  prelates,  who  in  former  periods  had 
so  often  a1nd  so  successfully  resisted  the  encroachments 
of  the  sovereign.  The  reader  has  already  witnessed 
the  successive  steps  by  which  most  of  the  great 
families  of  the  preceding  reigns  had  become  extinct, 
and  their  immense  possessions  had  been  frittered  away 
among  the  favourites  and  dependants  of  the  court. 
The  most  opulent  of  the  peers  under  Henry  were  poor 
in  comparison  with  their  predecessors  ; and  by  the 
operation  of  the  statute  against  liveries,  they  had  lost 
the  accustomed  means  of  arming  their  retainers  in 

J Quando  enim  unquam,  non  dico  in  Anglia,  ubi  semper  populi 
liberiores  sub  regum  imperio  fuerunt,  sed  omnino  in  aliquo  Chris- 
tianorum  regno,  auditum  est,  ut  unus  sic  plus  omnibus  posset,  et 
sic  omnia  suae  potestati  ac  libidini  subjecta  haberet,  ut  nullum 
cuiquam  contra  illius  voluntatem  presidium  in  legibus  constitutum 
esset,  sed  regis  nutus  omnia  moderaretur. — Pole,  fol.  ci. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547 


220 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547- 


SUpport  of  their  quarrels.  In  general  they  were  new 
men,  indebted  for  their  present  honours  and  estates  to 
the  bounty  of  Henry  or  of  his  father ; and  the  proud- 
est among  the  rest,  by  witnessing  the  attainders  and 
executions  of  others,  had  been  taught  to  tremble  for 
themselves,  and  to  crouch  in  submission  at  the  foot  of 
a master,  whose  policy  it  was  to  depress  the  great,  and 
punish  their  errors  without  mercy,  while  he  selected 
his  favourites  from  the  lowest  classes,  heaping  on  them 
honours  and  riches,  and  confiding  to  them  the  exercise 
of  his  authority.1 

2.  By  the  separation  of  the  realm  from  the  see  of 
Borne,  the  dependence  of  the  spiritual  had.  been  ren- 
dered still  more  complete  than  that  of  the  temporal 
peers.  Their  riches  had  been  diminished,  their  im- 
munities taken  away ; the  support  which  they  might 
have  derived  from  the  protection  of  the  pontiff  was 
gone ; they  were  nothing  more  than  the  delegates  of 
the  king,  exercising  a precarious  authority  determin- 
able at  his  pleasure.  The  ecclesiastical  constitutions, 
which  had  so  long  formed  part  of  the  law  of  the  land, 
now  depended  on  his  breath,  and  were  executed  only 
by  his  sufferance.  The  convocation  indeed  continued 
to  be  summoned ; but  its  legislative  authority  was 
gone.  Its  principal  business  was  to  grant  money ; yet 
even  these  grants  now  owed  their  force,  not  to  the 
consent  of  the  grantors,  but  to  the  approbation  of  the 
other  two  houses,  and  the  assent  of  the  crown.2 

1 Sic  nobiles  semper  tractavisti,  ut  nullius  principatu  minore  in 
honore  fuerint ; in  quos,  si  quid  leviter  deliquissent,  acerbissimus 
fuisti ; nihil  unquam  cuiquam  condonasti ; omnes  despicatui  ha- 
buisti ; nullum  apud  te  honoris  aut  gratise  locum  obtinere  passus  es  : 
cum  interea  semper  alienissimos  homines  ex  infima  plebe  assumptos 
circum  tehabueris,quibus  summa  omnia  deferres. — Pole,fol.  lxxxiii. 

3 Journals,  156,  218,  277.  The  first  instance  which  I find  was 
in  1540. 


SUBSERVIENCY  OF  PARLIAMENT. 


221 


3.  As  for  the  third  branch  of  the  legislature,  the 
Commons  of  England,  they  had  not  yet  acquired  suffi- 
cient importance  to  oppose  any  effectual  barrier  to  the 
power  of  the  sovereign ; yet  care  was  taken  that 
among  them  the  leading  members  should  be  devoted 
to  the  crown,  and  that  the  speaker  should  be  one 
holding  office,  or  high  in  the  confidence  of  the  minis- 
ters.1 Freedom  of  debate  was,  indeed,  granted ; but 
with  a qualification  which  in  reality  amounted  to  a 
refusal.  It  was  only  a dece7it  freedom  :2  and  as  the 
king  reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  deciding  what 
was  or  was  not  decent,  he  frequently  put  down  the 
opponents  of  the  court,  by  reprimanding  the  “ varlets” 
in  person,  or  by  sending  to  them  a threatening  mes- 
sage. 

It  is  plain  that  from  parliaments  thus  constituted, 
the  crown  had  little  to  fear ; and  though  Wolsey  had 
sought  to  govern  without  their  aid,  Henry  found  them 
so  obsequious  to  his  will,  that  he  convoked  them  re- 
peatedly, and  was  careful  to  have  his  most  wanton 
and  despotic  measures  sanctioned  with  their  approba- 
tion. The  parliament,  as  often  as  it  was  opened  or 
closed  by  the  king  in  person,  offered  a scene  not 
unworthy  of  an  oriental  divan.  The  form  indeed 
differed  but  little  from  our  present  usage.  The  king 

1 The  members  were  in  a great  measure  named  by  the  crown  or 
the  Lords.  See  a letter  of  the  earl  of  Southampton  to  Cromwell, 
Cleop.  E.  iv.  176,  and  another  from  Gardiner  to  the  council,  remind- 
ing them  that  the  house  of  Commons  was  not  complete,  because  he 
had  not  made  returns  as  usual  for  several  places  (Foxe,  ii.  6 9). 
The  treasurer  and  comptroller  of  the  household  were  accustomed  to 
conduct  the  business  of  the  crown.  The  former  generally  named  the 
speaker.  See  the  Journals  of  the  Commons  for  the  following  reigns, 
p.  24,  27,  37. 

2 Journals,  167.  This  is  the  first  time  during  Henry’s  reign  that 
the  request  of  freedom  of  speech  is  mentioned  in  the  Journals,  anno 
1542- 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


222 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.H.  1547. 


sat  on  liis  throne  ; on  the  right  hand  stood  the 
chancellor,  on  the  left  the  lord  treasurer ; whilst  the 
peers  were  placed  on  their  benches,  and  the  Commons 
stood  at  the  bar.  But  the  addresses  made  on  these 
occasions  by  the  chancellor  or  the  speaker,  usually 
lasted  more  than  an  hour ; and  their  constant  theme 
was  the  character  of  the  king.  The  orators,  in  their 
efforts  to  surpass  each  other,  fed  his  vanity  with  the 
most  hyperbolical  praise.  Cromwell  was  unable,  he 
believed  all  men  were  unable,  to  describe  the  unutter- 
able qualities  of  the  royal  mind,  the  sublime  virtues  of 
the  royal  heart.  Rich  told  him  that  in  wisdom  he 
was  equal  to  Solomon,  in  strength  and  courage  to 
Samson,  in  beauty  and  address  to  Absalom ; and 
Audeley  declared  before  his  face,  that  God  had 
anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  wisdom  above  his  fellows, 
above  the  other  kings  of  the  earth,  above  all  his  pre- 
decessors ; had  given  him  a perfect  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures,  with  which  he  had  prostrated  the  Roman 
Goliath ; a perfect  knowledge  of  the  art  of  war,  by 
which  he  had  gained  the  most  brilliant  victories  at  the 
same  time  in  remote  places ; and  a perfect  knowledge 
of  the  art  of  government,  by  which  he  had  for  thirty 
years  secured  to  his  own  realm  the  blessings  of  peace, 
while  all  the  other  nations  of  Europe  suffered  the 
calamities  of  war. 

During  these  harangues,  as  often  as  the  words  “ most 
“sacred  majesty”1  were  repeated,  or  any  emphatic 
expression  was  pronounced,  the  lords  rose,  and  the 
whole  assembly,  in  token  of  respect  and  assent,  bowed 
profoundly  to  the  demi-god  on  the  throne.  Henry 

1 The  title  of  Majesty  is  given  to  Henry  II.  in  two  passages  of  the 
“Black  Book  of  the  Exchequer,”  i.  133,  255;  the  most  ancient 
instances  I have  met  with. 


r 


ECCLESIASTICAL  INFLUENCE.  223 

himself  affected  to  hear  such  fulsome  adulation  witli 
indifference.  His  answer  was  invariably  the  same ; 
that  he  had  no  claim  to  superior  excellence ; but  that, 
if  he  did  possess  it,  he  gave  the  glory  to  God,  the 
Author  of  all  good  gifts  ; it  was,  however,  a pleasure 
to  him  to  witness  the  affection  of  his  subjects,  and  to 
learn  that  they  were  not  insensible  of  the  blessings 
which  they  enjoyed  under  his  government.^ 

II.  It  is  evident  that  the  new  dignity  of  head  of 
the  church,  by  transferring  to  the  king  that  authority 
which  had  been  hitherto  exercised  by  the  pontiff,  must 
have  considerably  augmented  the  influence  of  the 
crown;  but  in  addition,  the  arguments  by  which  it 
was  supported  tended  to  debase  the  spirit  of  the 
people,  and  to  exalt  the  royal  prerogative  above  law 
and  equity.  When  the  adversaries  of  the  supremacy 
asked  in  what  passage  of  the  sacred  writings  the 
government  of  the  church  was  given  to  a layman,  its 
advocates  boldly  appealed  to  those  texts  which  pre- 
scribe obedience  to  the  established  authorities.  The 
king,  they  maintained,  was  the  image  of  God  upon 
earth ; to  disobey  his  commands  was  to  disobey  God 
himself ; to  limit  his  authority,  when  no  limit  was  laid 
down,  was  an  offence  against  the  sovereign;  and  to  make 
distinctions,  when  the  Scripture  made  none,  was  an 
impiety  against  God.  It  was  indeed  acknowledged 
that  this  supreme  authority  might  be  employed  un- 
reasonably and  unjustly  ; but  even  then  to  resist  was 
a crime ; it  became  the  duty  of  the  sufferer  to  submit ; 
and  his  only  resource  was  to  pray  that  the  heart  of  his 
oppressor  might  be  changed ; his  only  consolation  to 
reflect,  that  the  king  himself  would  hereafter  be  sum- 
moned to  answer  for  his  conduct  before  an  unerring 
1 Seethe  Journals,  86,  ioi;  129,  161,  162,  164,  17. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547 


224 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


tribunal.  Henry  became  a sincere  believer  in  a doc- 
trine so  flattering  to  bis  pride,  and  easily  persuaded 
himself  that  he  did  no  more  than  his  duty  in  punishing 
with  severity  the  least  opposition  to  his  will.  To  im- 
press it  on  the  minds  of  the  people,  it  was  perpetually 
inculcated  from  the  pulpit ; it  was  enforced  in  books 
of  controversy  and  instruction;  it  was  promulgated 
with  authority  in  the  “ Institution”  and  afterwards  in 
the  “ Erudition  of  a Christian  Man.”1  From  that 
period  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience  formed  a 
leading  trait  in  the  orthodox  creed. 

III.  The  two  great  parties,  into  which  religious 
disputes  had  divided  the  nation,  contributed  also  to 
strengthen  the  despotic  power  of  Henry.  They  were 
too  jealous  of  each  other  to  watch,  much  less  to  resist, 
the  encroachments  of  the  crown.  The  great  object  of 
both  was  the  same  : to  win  the  favour  of  the  king,  that 
they  might  crush  the  power  of  their  adversaries ; and 
with  this  view  they  flattered  his  vanity,  submitted  to 
his  caprice,  and  became  obsequious  slaves  to  his  plea- 
sure. Henry,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  were 
through  policy  or  accident,  played  them  off  against 
each  other ; sometimes  appearing  to  lean  to  the  old, 
sometimes  to  the  new  doctrines,  alternately  raising 
and  depressing  the  hopes  of  each,  but  never  suffering 
either  party  to  obtain  the  complete  ascendancy  over 

1 See  Gardiner’s  Treatise  de  vera  Obedientia,  in  the  Fasciculus 
rerum  expetendarum,  ii.  800 ; and  Sampson’s  de  Obedientia  Regi 
praestanda ; ibid.  820;  also  Strype.  i.  m.  Thus  we  are  told  in  a 
sermon  by  Archbishop  Cranmer  : “ Though  the  magistrates  be  evil 
“ and  very  tyrants  against  the  commonwealth,  and  enemies  to- 
“ Christ’s  religion,  yet  ye  subjects  must  obey  in  all  worldly  things 
“ as  the  Christians  do  under  the  truth,  and  ought  so  to  do,  as  long 
“ as  he  commandeth  them  not  to  do  against  God.” — Strype’s  Cran- 
mer, Rec.  1 1 4.  See  also  the  king’s  books,  the  Articles,  th& 
Institution,  and  the  Erudition  of  a Christian  Man. 


EXTRAORDINARY  STATUTES. 


225 


its  opponent.  Thus  he  kept  them  in  a state  of  de- 
pendence on  his  will,  and  secured  their  concurrence 
to  every  measure  which  his  passion  or  caprice  might 
suggest,  without  regard  to  reason  or  justice,  or  the 
fundamental  laws  of  the  land.  Of  the  extraordinary 
enactments  which  followed,  a few  instances  may  suffice, 
i . The  succession  to  the  crown  was  repeatedly  altered, 
and  at  length  left  to  the  king’s  private  judgment  or 
affection.  The  right  was  first  taken  from  Mary,  and 
given  to  Elizabeth ; then  transferred  from  Elizabeth 
to  the  king’s  issue  by  Jane  Seymour  or  any  future 
queen  ; next  restored,  on  the  failure  of  issue  by  Prince 
Edward,  to  both  Mary  and  Elizabeth  ; and  lastly, 
failing  issue  by  them,  entailed  upon  any  person  or 
persons  to  whom  it  should  please  him  to  assure 
it  in  remainder  by  his  last  will.1  2.  Treasons  were 
multiplied  by  the  most  vexatious,  and  often,  if 
ridicule  could  attach  to  so  grave  a matter,  by  the 
most  ridiculous  laws.  It  was  once  treason  to  dis- 
pute, it  was  afterwards  treason  to  maintain,  the 
validity  of  the  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  or  the 
legitimacy  of  her  daughter.  It  became  treason  to 
marry,  without  the  royal  license,  any  of  the  king’s 
children,  whether  legitimate  or  natural,  or  his  paternal 
brothers  or  sisters,  or  their  issue ; or  for  any  woman 
to  marry  the  king  himself,  unless  she  were  a maid,  or 
had  previously  revealed  to  him  her  former  incon- 
tinence. It  was  made  treason  to  call  the  king  a 
heretic  or  schismatic,  openly  to  wish  him  harm,  or  to 
slander  him,  his  wife,  or  his  issue.2  This,  the  most 
heinous  of  crimes  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  was  extended 

1 25  Hen.  VIII.  22.  28  Hen.  VIII.  7.  35  Hen.  VIII.  2. 

2 25  Hen.  VIII.  22.  26  Hen.  VIII.  13.  28  Hen.  VIII.  18. 

32  Hen.  VIII.  25.  33  Hen.  VIII.  21. 

VOL.  V.  Q 


CHAP. 

111. 

A.D.  1547. 


226 


HENRY  VIII. 


chap,  from  deeds  and  assertions  to  the  very  thoughts  of  men. 
a.d.  1547.  Its  guilt  was  incurred  by  any  person  who  should,  by 
words,  writing,  imprinting,  or  any  other  exterior  act, 
directly  or  indirectly  accept  or  take,  judge  or  believe, 
that  either  of  the  royal  marriages,  that  with  Catherine, 
or  that  with  Anne  Boleyn,  was  valid,  or  who  should 
protest  that  he  was  not  bound  to  declare  his  opinion, 
or  should  refuse  to  swear  that  he  would  answer  truly 
such  questions  as  should  be  asked  him  on  those  dan- 
gerous subjects.  It  would  be  difficult  to  discover, 
under  the  most  despotic  governments,  a law  more 
cruel  and  absurd.  The  validity  or  invalidity  of  the 
two  marriages  was  certainly  matter  of  opinion,  sup- 
ported and  opposed  on  each  side  by  so  many  contra- 
dictory arguments,  that  men  of  the  soundest  judgment 
might  reasonably  be  expected  to  differ  from  each 
other.  Yet  Henry,  by  this  statute,  was  authorized 
to  dive  into  the  breast  of  every  individual,  to  extort 
from  him  his  secret  sentiments  upon  oath,  and  to 
subject  him  to  the  penalty  of  treason,  if  those  senti- 
ments did  not  accord  with  the  royal  pleasure.1  3.  The 
kingwas  made  in  a great  measure  independent  of  parlia- 
ment, by  two  statutes,  one  of  which  put  his  proclama- 
tions on  the  same  footing  with  acts  of  parliament,  pro- 
vided they  did  not  set  aside  laws  actually  in  force,  nor 
enjoin  the  penalties  of  disherison  or  death  in  any  cases 
but  those  of  heretical  doctrine ; the  other  appointed 
a tribunal,  consisting  of  nine  privy  counsellors,  with 
power  to  punish  all  transgressors  of  such  proclama- 
tions.2 4.  The  dreadful  punishment  of  heresy  was  not 

1 28  Hen.  VIII.  c.  7. 

2 31  Hen.  VIII.  8.  34  Hen.  VIII.  23.  We  learn  from  a letter 

of  Bishop  Gardiner  that  these  statutes  originated  from  a decision  of  the 
judges,  that  the  council  could  not  punish  certain  merchants,  who  had 


PROSECUTIONS  FOR  TREASON. 


227 


confined  to  those  who  rejected  the  doctrines  which  had  chap. 

J . hi. 

already  been  declared  orthodox,  but  it  was  extended  id.  i547, 

beforehand  to  all  persons  who  should  teach  or  main- 
tain any  opinion  contrary  to  such  doctrines  as  the  king 
might  afterwards  publish.  If  the  criminal  were  a 
clergyman,  he  was  to  expiate  his  third  offence  at  the 
stake ; if  a layman,  to  forfeit  his  personal  property, 
and  be  imprisoned  for  life.1  Thus  was  Henry  invested, 
by  act  of  parliament,  with  the  high  prerogative  of 
theological  infallibility,  and  an  obligation  was  laid  on 
all  men,  without  exception,  whether  of  the  new  or  of 
the  old  learning,  to  model  their  religious  opinions  and 
religious  practice  by  the  sole  judgment  of  their  sove- 
reign. 5.  By  an  ex  post  facto  law,  those  who  had 
taken  the  first  oath  against  the  papal  authority,  were 
reputed  to  have  taken,  and  to  be  bound  b}^  a second 
and  much  more  comprehensive  oath,  which  was  after- 
wards enacted,  and  which,  perhaps,  had  it  been  ten- 
dered to  them  at  first,  they  would  have  refused.2 

But  that  which  made  the  severity  of  these  statutes 
the  more  terrible,  was  the  manner  in  which  criminal 
prosecutions  were  then  conducted.  The  crown  could 
hardly  fail  in  convicting  the  prisoner,  whatever  might 
be  his  guilt  or  his  innocence.  He  was  first  inter- 

exported  grain  in  defiance  of  a royal  proclamation  ; because  they  were 
permitted  to  export  it  by  act  of  parliament,  as  long  as  it  was  below 
a particular  price. — See  Letter,  apud  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  1 14.  On  this 
account  it  was  that  the  king  required  that  his  proclamations  should 
have  the  force  of  acts  of  parliament.  The  bill  did  not  pass  without 
“ many  large  words.” — Ibid.  When  it  did  pass,  the  reason  assigned 
was,  “ that  the  king  might  not  be  driven  to  extend  his  royal  supre- 
“ macy.”  As  some  check  on  the  exercise  of  this  new  prerogative, 
it  was  required  that  the  majority  of  the  council  should  advise  the 
proclamation ; and  it  was  moreover  declared  that  such  proclama- 
tion derived  all  its  force  “from  the  authority  of  this  act,” — a 
declaration  which  preserved  the  superior  authority  of  parliament. 

See  the  statute  itself. 

1 34  Hen.  VIII.  1. 

q 2 


2 35  Hen.  VIII.  1. 


228 


HENRY  VIII. 


(3  HAP. 
III. 

A.P.  1547- 


rogafced  in  his  cell,  urged  with  the  hope  of  pardon  to 
make  a confession,  or  artfully  led  by  ensnaring  ques- 
tions into  dangerous  admissions.  When  the  materials 
of  the  prosecution  were  completed,  they  were  laid 
before  the  grand  inquest ; and,  if  the  bill  was  found, 
the  conviction  of  the  accused  might  be  pronounced 
certain ; for,  in  the  trial  which  followed,  the  real 
question  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  petit  jury 
was,  which  of  the  two  were  more  worthy  of  credit — the 
prisoner  who  maintained  his  innocence,  or  the  grand 
inquest  which  had  pronounced  his  guilt.  With  this 
view  the  indictment,  with  a summary  of  the  proofs  on 
which  it  had  been  found,  was  read ; and  the  accused, 
now  perhaps  for  the  first  time  acquainted  with  the 
nature  of  the  evidence  against  him,  was  indulged  with 
the  liberty  of  speaking  in  his  own  defence.  Still  he 
could  not  insist  on  the  production  of  his  accusers 
that  he  might  obtain  the  benefit  of  cross-examination; 
nor  claim  the  aid  of  counsel  to  repel  the  taunts,  and 
unravel  the  sophistry,  too  often  employed  at  that 
period  by  the  advocates  of  the  crown.1  In  this 

1 I speak  with  diffidence  on  this  subject;  but  I conceive  that  the 
refusal  to  confront  the  accusers  with  the  accused  grew  out  of  the 
ancient  manner  of  administering  justice,  and  was  strictly  conformable 
to  the  practice  of  the  courts  of  law.  Originally  there  was  but  one 
jury,  that  which  is  called  the  grand  inquest.  If  the  prisoner,  on  the 
presentment  of  this  jury,  pleaded  not  guilty,  the  judge  might  allow 
him  to  prove  his  innocence  by  the  ordeal,  afterwards  by  the  ordeal 
or  battle,  and  lastly  by  his  country,  that  is,  by  the  verdict  of  a petit 
jury,  who  should  decide  on  the  presentment  by  the  grand  inquest. 
But  in  this  case  none  of  the  former  jury,  or  their  witnesses,  techni- 
cally termed  accusers,  and  identified  with  them,  could  be  produced 
in  court ; because  they  were  an  interested  party,  the  propriety  of 
whose  proceedings  was  now  upon  trial ; and  on  that  account  the 
names  of  the  accusers  were  returned  on  the  back  of  the  indictment, 
that  they  might  be  challenged  as  witnesses.  It  was  first  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  that  the  law  allowed  the  accusers  to  be 
brought  forward  ; and  after  that  it  was  long  before  the  judges  could 
be  prevailed  upon  to  depart  from  the  ancient  practice.  — See 


ATTAINDER  WITHOUT  TRIAL. 


229 


method  of  trial,  every  chance  was  in  favour  of  the 
prosecution ; and  yet  it  was  gladly  exchanged  for  the 
expedient  discovered  by  Cromwell,  and  afterward  em- 
ployed against  its  author.  Instead  of  a public  trial, 
the  minister  introduced  a bill  of  attainder  into  parlia- 
ment, accompanied  with  such  documents  as  he  thought 
proper  to  submit.  It  was  passed  by  the  two  houses 
with  all  convenient  expedition ; and  the  unfortunate 
prisoner  found  himself  condemned  to  the  scaffold  or 
the  gallows,  without  the  opportunity  of  opening  his 
mouth  in  his  own  vindication. 

To  proceed  by  attainder  became  the  usual  practice 
in  the  latter  portion  of  the  king’s  reign.  It  was  more 
certain  in  the  result,  by  depriving  the  accused  of  the 
few  advantages  which  he  possessed  in  the  ordinary 
courts  ; it  enabled  the  minister  to  gratify  the  royal 
suspicion  or  resentment  without  the  danger  of  refuta- 
tion, or  of  unpleasant  disclosures;  and  it  satisfied  the 
minds  of  the  people,  who,  unacquainted  with  the  real 
merits  of  the  case,  could  not  dispute  the  equity  of  a 
judgment  given  with  the  unanimous  assent  of  the 
whole  legislature. 

Thus  it  was  that  by  the  obsequiousness  of  the  par- 
liament, the  assumption  of  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy, 
and  the  servility  of  religious  factions,  Henry  acquired 
and  exercised  the  most  despotic  sway  over  the  lives, 
the  fortunes,  and  the  liberties  of  his  subjects.  Happily, 
the  forms  of  a free  government  were  still  suffered  to 

Mr:s  Reeves’s  History  of  English  Law,  ii.  268,  459  ; iv.  494 — 505. 
At  the  trial  of  the  duke  of  Buckingham  the  witnesses  or  accusers 
were  indeed  brought  before  him.  But  it  seems  to  have  been  a 
particular  indulgence ; “ for  the  king  had  commanded  that  the  laws 
“ should  be  ministered  to  him  with  favour  and  right.”  Nor  does  it 
appear  that  then  they  were  cross-examined.  “ Their  depositions  were 
“ read,  and  the  deponents  were  delivered  as  prisoners  to  the  officers 
“ of  the  Tower.” — Hall,  fol.  85. 


CHA  P. 
III. 

A.D.  1547. 


230 


HENRY  VIII. 


CHAP. 

III. 

A.D.  1547. 


exist ; into  these  forms  a spirit  of  resistance  to  arbi- 
trary power  gradually  infused  itself ; the  pretensions 
of  the  crown  were  opposed  by  the  claims  of  the  people  ; 
and  the  result  of  a long  and  arduous  struggle  was 
that  constitution  which  for  more  than  a century  has 
excited  the  envy  and  the  admiration  of  Europe. 


231 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EDWARD  VI. 


Emperor. 
Charles  V. 


CONTEMPORARY  PRINCES. 

IKs.  of  France.  j K.  of  Spain.  Q.  of  Scotland. 

Francis 1547  Charles  V.  Mary. 

Henry  II.  | 

Popes. 

Paul  III 1549-  Julius  III. 


HEETFOED  IS  MADE  PEOTECTOE  AND  DUKE  OF  SOMEESET WAR 

WITH  SCOTLAND BATTLE  OF  PINKENCLEUGH PEOGEESS  OF  THE 

EEFOEMATION BOOK  OF  COMMON  PEAYEE LOED  ADMIEAL  AE- 

EESTED  AND  BEHEADED DISCONTENT  AND  INSUEEECTIONS 

FEANCE  DECLAEES  WAE PEOTECTOE  IS  SENT  TO  THE  TOWER 

AND  DISCHAEGED PEACE DEPEIVATION  OF  BISHOPS TEOUBLES 

OF  THE  LADY  MAEY FOEEIGN  PEEACHEES SOMEESET  AEEESTED 

AND  EXECUTED NEW  PAELIAMENT WAEWICK’S  AMBITION  

DEATH  OF  THE  KING. 


The  reader  is  already  acquainted  with  the  ingenious 
device  by  which,  at  the  same  time  that  the  radical 
defect  in  the  will  of  the  late  sovereign  was  concealed, 
the  more  important  of  its  provisions  were  made  public. 
The  sixteen  executors  to  whom  Henry  had  confided 
the  government  of  the  king  and  kingdom,  during 
the  minority  of  his  son  Edward, — he  was  only  nine 
years  old, — were,  Cranmer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury; 
the  lord  Wriothesley,  lord  chancellor;  the  lord 
St.  John,  great  master ; the  earl  of  Hertford,  great 
chamberlain,  and  uncle  to  the  young  king  ; the  lord 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


232 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

TV. 

A. I).  1547- 


Bussell,  privy  seal ; the  viscount  Lisle,  high  admiral ; 
Tunstall,  bishop  of  Durham  ; Sir  Anthony  Brown, 
master  of  the  horse ; Sir  Edward  Montague,  chief 
justice  of  the  Common  Pleas ; Mr.  Justice  Bromley ; 
Sir  Edward  North,  chancellor  of  the  court  of  Aug- 
mentations ; Sir  William  Paget,  chief  secretary  ; Sir 
Anthony  Denny,  and  Sir  William  Herbert,  chief  gen- 
tlemen of  the  privy  chamber;  Sir  Edward  Wotton, 
treasurer  of  Calais  ; and  Dr.  Wotton,  dean  of  Canter- 
bury and  York.  The  publication  of  these  names 
provoked  the  murmurs  of  many,  the  surprise  of  all. 
It  was  remarked  that  they  were  not  only  new  men, 
raised  to  honours  and  office  by  the  judgment  or  par- 
tiality of  the  late  king,  but  for  the  most  part  the  very 
individuals  who  had  constantly  attended  him  during 
his  sickness,  and  had  possessed  exclusively  the  benefit 
of  access  to  his  person.  To  aid  them  in  cases  of  diffi- 
culty, the  will  had  appointed  a second  council,  consist- 
ing of  twelve  persons:  the  earls  of  Arundel  and  Essex, 
Sir  Thomas  Cheyney,  treasurer,  and  Sir  John  Gage, 
comptroller  of  the  household;  Sir  Anthony  Wingfield, 
vice-chamberlain  ; Sir  William  Petre,  chief  secretary  ; 
Sir  Bicbard  Bich,  Sir  John  Baker,  Sir  Balph  Sadler, 
Sir  Thomas  Seymour,  another  uncle  of  the  young  king, 
Sir  Bichard  Southwell,  and  Sir  Edmund  Peckham. 
But  these  were  not  invested  with  any  real  authority. 
They  could  only  tender  their  advice  on  occasions  when 
it  might  be  required.1 

The  new  king  was  proclaimed  immediately  after 
the  publication  of  the  will  by  the  chancellor — on  the 
Monday.  On  the  same  day  the  executors,  being  as- 
sembled in  the  Tower,  “ resolved  not  only  to  stand  to 
“ and  maintain  the  last  will  and  testament  of  their 
1 Rym.  xv.  114,  116. 


Jan.  31. 


EARL  OF  HERTFORD  PROTECTOR. 


233 


“ master  the  late  king,  and  every  part  and  article  of  chap. 

“ the  same,  to  the  uttermost  of  their  power,  wits,  and  a.d.  1547. 
“ cunning,  but  also  that  every  one  of  them  present 
“ should  take  a corporal  oath  upon  a book,  for  the 
“ more  assured  and  effectual  accomplishment  of  the 
“ same.”1  Scarcely,  however,  had  they  taken  this 
oath,  when  they  were  called  upon  to  break  it  by  the  Feb-  r- 
ambition  of  the  earl  of  Hertford ; whose  partisans 
pretended  that  for  convenience  and  despatch  it  would 
be  necessary  to  appoint  one  of  the  council  to  transact 
business  with  the  foreign  envoys,  and  to  represent  on 
other  occasions  the  person  of  the  young  sovereign. 

By  Wriothesley  the  project  was  opposed  with  boldness 
and  warmth.  He  appealed  to  the  words  and  the 
spirit  of  the  will,  by  which  all  the  executors  were 
invested  with  equal  powers ; and  he  contended  that, 
by  giving  to  themselves  a superior,  they  would  in- 
validate that  which  was  the  only  foundation  of  their 
present  authority.  But  to  argue  was  fruitless.  A 
majority  had  been  previously  secured  ; the  chancellor 
withdrew  his  opposition,  on  an  understanding  that  the 
new  officer  should  not  presume  to  act  without  the 
assent  of  the  majority  of  the  council ; and  the  earl 
of  Hertford  was  immediately  appointed  protector  of 
the  realm,  and  guardian  of  the  king’s  person.  His 
talents  were  perhaps  unequal  to  the  situation ; but 
two  circumstances  pleaded  in  his  favour.  He  was 
uncle  to  the  king ; and  he  could  not  boast  of  royal 
blood  in  his  veins.  The  first  naturally  interested  him 
in  the  welfare  of  his  nephew  ; the  second  forbade  him 
to  aspire  to  the  throne. 

In  the  afternoon  the  executors  conducted  Edward 

1 Council-book,  Harl.  MS.  352.  Bromley  and  the  two  Wottons 
were  absent. 


234 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


into  tlie  chamber  of  presence,  where  all  the  lords 
temporal  and  spiritual  waited  to  receive  him.  Each 
in  succession  approached  the  king,  kissed  his  hand 
kneeling,  and  said,  “ Grod  save  your  grace.”  The 
chancellor  then  explained  to  them  the  dispositions  in 
the  will  of  their  late  sovereign,  and  the  resolution  of 
his  executors  to  place  the  earl  of  Hertford  at  their 
head.  They  unanimously  signified  their  assent ; the 
new  protector  expressed  his  gratitude ; and  Edward, 
pulling  off  his  cap,  said,  “We  heartily  thank  you,  my 

lords  all ; and,  hereafter,  in  all  that  ye  shall  have  to 
“ do  with  us  for  any  suit  or  causes,  ye  shall  be  heartily 
“ welcome.”  The  appointment  of  Hertford  was  an- 
nounced by  proclamation,  and  was  received  with 
transports  of  joy  by  all  who  were  attached  to  the 
new  doctrines,  or  who  sought  to  improve  their  for- 
tunes at  the  expense  of  the  church.1 

In  this  instance  the  members  of  the  council  had 
been  driven  by  the  ambition  of  Hertford  to  violate  the 
known  will  of  their  late  sovereign  ; in  another  and 
more  doubtful  matter  they  were  induced  by  views  of 
personal  interest  to  execute  with  scrupulous  exactitude 
certain  designs,  which  he  was  said  to  have  formed. 
By  a clause  in  the  body  of  the  will,  Henry  had  charged 
them  with  the  obligation  of  ratifying  every  gift,  of 
performing  every  promise,  which  he  should  have  made 
before  his  death.  What  these  gifts  and  promises  might 
be,  must,  it  was  presumed,  be  known  to  Paget,  Her- 

1 Burnet,  ii.  4.  Stowe,  593.  Strype,  14.  That  the  office  of 
protector  was  the  object  of  Hertford’s  ambition,  and  that  he  had 
previously  intrigued  to  obtain  it,  is  evident  from  a letter  written  to 
him  afterwards  by  Paget.  “ Remember  what  you  promised  me  in 
“ the  gallery  at  Westminster,  before  the  breath  was  out  of  the  body 
“ of  the  king  that  dead  is ; remember  what  you  promised  me  imme- 
u diately  after,  devising  with  me  about  the  place  which  you  now 
u occupy.”  July  7,  1549. — Apud  Strype,  ii.  Rec.  p.  109. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  COUNCIL. 


235 


bert,  and  Denny,  who  had  stood  high  in  the  confidence,  chap. 
and  had  been  constantly  in  the  chamber,  of  the  dying  a.d.  1547. 
monarch.  These  gentlemen  were  therefore  inter- 
rogated before  their  colleagues ; and  from  their  de- 
positions it  was  inferred,  that  the  king  had  intended 
to  give  a dukedom  to  Hertford ; to  create  the  earl  of 
Essex,  his  queen’s  brother,  a marquess ; to  raise  the 
Viscount  Lisle  and  Lord  Wriothesley  to  the  higher  rank 
of  earls,  and  to  confer  the  title  of  baron  on  Sir  Thomas 
Seymour,  Sir  Richard  Rich,  Sir  John  St.  Leger,  Sir 
William  Willoughby,  Sir  Edward  Sheffield,  and  Sir 
Christopher  Danby ; and  that,  to  enable  the  new  peers 
to  support  their  respective  titles,  he  had  destined  for 
Hertford  an  estate  in  land  of  eight  hundred  pounds 
per  annum,  with  a yearly  pension  of  three  hundred 
pounds  from  the  first  bishopric  which  should  become 
vacant,  and  the  incomes  of  a treasurership,  a deanery, 
and  six  prebends  in  different  cathedrals ; for  each  of 
the  others  a proportionate  increase  of  yearly  income  ; 
and  for  the  three  deponents,  Paget,  Herbert,  and 
Denny,  four  hundred  pounds,  four  hundred  marks, 
and  two  hundred  pounds.1  Two  out  of  the  number, 

St.  Leger  and  Danby,  had  sufficient  virtue  to  refuse 
the  money  and  the  honours  which  were  allotted  to 
them  ; Hertford  was  created  duke  of  Somerset,  Essex 
marquess  of  Northampton,  Lisle  earl  of  Warwick,  Feb.  16. 
Wriothesley  earl  of  Southampton,  and  Seymour,  Rich, 

1 Burnet,  ex.  lib.  Cone.  ii.  7.  It  is  observable  that  the  deponents 
say  : “ The  king,  being  on  his  death-bed  put  in  mind  of  what  he  had 
“ promised,  ordered  it  to  be  put  in  his  will,  that  his  executors  should 
“ perform  every  thing  that  should  appear  to  have  been  promised  by 
“ him.” — Ibid.  Such  a clause,  indeed,  appears  in  the  body  of  the 
will.  But  how  could  it  be  there,  if  Henry  ordered  it  to  be  inserted 
only  when  he  was  on  his  death-bed,  that  is,  about  the  28th  of 
January  ? The  will  purports  to  have  been  executed  four  weeks 
before,  on  the  30th  of  December. 


236 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap.  Willoughby,  and  Sheffield,  barons  of  the  same  names  ; 
a.d.  1547.  and  to  all  these,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  last, 
and  to  Cranmer,  Paget,  Herbert,  and  Denny,  and 
more  than  thirty  other  persons,  were  assigned  in 
different  proportions  manors  and  lordships  out  of  the 
lands  which  had  belonged  to  the  dissolved  monasteries, 
or  still  belonged  to  the  existing  bishoprics.1  But  Sir 
Thomas  Seymour  was  not  satisfied ; as  uncle  of  the 
king  he  aspired  to  office  no  less  than  rank ; and,  to 
appease  his  discontent,  the  new  earl  of  Warwick  re- 
signed in  his  favour  the  patent  of  high  admiral,  and 
was  indemnified  with  that  of  great  chamberlain,  which 
Somerset  had  exchanged  for  the  dignities  of  lord  high 
treasurer  and  earl  marshal,  forfeited  by  the  attainder 
of  the  duke  of  Norfolk.2  These  proceedings  did  not 
pass  without  severe  animadversion.  Why,  it  was 
asked,  were  not  the  executors  content  with  the  au- 
thority which  they  derived  from  the  will  of  their 
late  master  P Why  did  they  reward  themselves  before- 
hand, instead  of  waiting  till  their  young  sovereign 
should  be  of  age,  when  he  might  recompense  their 
services  according  to  their  respective  merits  ? 

The  interment  of  Henry  was  performed  in  the  usual 
Peb.  20.  style  of  royal  magnificence  ;3  but  at  the  coronation  of 

1 See  the  names  in  Strype,  ii.  7.8. 

2 Rym.  xv.  124,  127,  130.  Stowe,  393. 

3 The  body  lay  in  state  in  the'  chapel  of  Whitehall,  which  was 
hung  with  black  cloth.  Eighty  large  wax  tapers  were  kept  con- 
stantly burning ; twelve  lords  mourners  sat  around,  within  a rail ; 
and  every  day  masses  and  a dirge  were  performed.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  service,  Norroy  king  at  arms  called  aloud  : “Of 
“ your  charity  pray  for  the  soul  of  the  high  and  mighty  prince,  our 
“ late  sovereign  lord,  Henry  VIII.”  On  the  14th  of  February,  the 
body  was  removed  to  Sion  House,  on  the  15th  to  Windsor,  and  the 
next  day  was  interred  in  the  midst  of  the  choir,  near  to  the  body  of 
Jane  Seymour.  Gardiner,  bishop  of  Winchester,  preached  the 
sermon  and  read  the  funeral  service.  When  he  cast  the  mould  into 
the  grave,  saying,  pulvis  pulveri,  cinis  cineri,  the  lord  great  master, 


THE  KING  CROWNED. 


237 


his  son,  men  observed  with  surprise  several  departures  uhap. 
from  ancient  precedent.  That  the  delicate  health  of  a.d.  1547. 
the  young  king  might  not  suffer  from  fatigue,  the 
accustomed  ceremony  was  considerably  abridged  ; and, 
under  pretence  of  respect  for  the  laws  and  constitution 
of  the  realm,  an  important  alteration  was  introduced 
into  that  part  of  the  form,  which  had  been  devised  by 
our  Saxon  ancestors,  to  put  the  new  sovereign  in  mind 
that  he  held  his  crown  by  the  free  choice  of  the  nation. 
Hitherto  it  had  been  the  custom  for  the  archbishop, 
first  to  receive  the  king’s  oath,  and  then,  having  ex- 
plained the  obligations  of  that  oath,  to  ask  the  people 
if  they  were  willing  to  accept  him  on  those  terms,  and 
to  obey  him  as  their  liege  lord.  How  the  order  was 
inverted  ; and  not  only  did  the  address  to  the  people 
precede  the  oath  of  the  king,  but  in  that  very  address 
they  were  reminded  that  he  held  his  crown  by  descent, 
and  that  it  was  their  duty  to  submit  to  his  rule.  “ Sirs,” 
said  the  metropolitan,  “ I here  present  King  Edward, 

“ rightful  and  undoubted  inheritor,  by  the  laws  of  God 
“ and  man,  to  the  royal  dignity  and  crown  imperial  of 
“ this  realm,  whose  consecration,  inunction,  and  coro- 
“ nation,  is  appointed  by  all  the  nobles  and  peers  of 
“ the  land  to  be  this  day.  Will  ye  serve  at  this  time, 

“ and  give  your  good  wills  and  assents  to  the  same 
“ consecration,  inunction,  and  coronation,  as  by  your 
“ duty  of  allegiance  ye  be  bound  to  do  ?”  When  the 
acclamations  of  the  spectators  had  subsided,  the  young 

the  lord  chamberlain,  the  treasurer,  comptroller,  and  gentlemen 
ushers,  broke  their  staves  into  three  parts  over  their  heads,  and  threw 
the  fragments  upon  the  coffin.  The  psalm,  “ De  profundis,”  was 
then  said;  and  Garter  king  at  arms,  attended  by  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  the  bishop  of  Durham,  immediately  proclaimed  the 
style  of  the  new  sovereign. — See  Sandford,  492;  Strype,  ii.  Rec. 

3—17;  Hayward,  275. 


238 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.P.  1547. 


Edward  was  led  to  the  altar,  where  he  took  the  oath, 
not  that  of  former  times,  hut  one  made  for  the  present 
occasion;  by  which  he  bound  himself, — “ 1.  To  the 
“ people  of  England,  to  keep  the  laws  and  liberties  of 
“the  realm;  2.  To  the  church  and  the  people,  to 
“keep  peace  and  concord;  3.  To  do  in  all  his  judg- 
“ ments  equal  justice ; 4.  To  make  no  laws  but  to  the 
“ honour  of  God,  and  the  good  of  the  commonwealth, 
“ and  by  the  consent  of  the  people  as  had  been  ac- 
“ customed.”  He  was  next  anointed  after  the  ancient 
form ; the  protector  and  the  archbishop  placed  on  his 
head  successively  three  crowns,  emblematic  of  the 
three  kingdoms  of  England,  France,  and  Ireland;  and 
the  lords  and  prelates  first  did  homage  two  by  two, 
and  then  in  a body  promised  fealty  on  their  knees.1 
Instead  of  a sermon,  Cranmer  pronounced  a short 
address  to  the  new  sovereign,  telling  him  that  the 
promises  which  he  had  just  made  could  not  affect  his 
right  to  sway  the  sceptre  of  his  dominions.  That  right 
he,  like  his  predecessors,  had  derived  from  God; 
whence  it  followed,  that  neither  the  bishop  of  Eome, 
nor  any  other  bishop,  could  impose  conditions  on  him 
at  his  coronation,  nor  pretend  to  deprive  him  of  his 
crown  on  the  plea  that  he  had  broken  his  coronation 
oath.  Yet  these  solemn  rites  served  to  admonish  him 
of  his  duties,  which  were,  “ as  God’s  vicegerent  and 
“ Christ’s  vicar,  to  see  that  God  be  worshipped,  and 
“ idolatry  be  destroyed  ; that  the  tyranny  of  the  bishop 

1 Compare  the  ancient  form  in  Rymer,  vii.  158,  with  this  in 
Burnet,  ii.  Records,  93  ; and  Strype’s  Cranmer,  142.  No  notice 
was  taken  of  the  form  of  oath  devised  by  Henry  VIII.  to  be  used 
“ at  every  coronation,”  by  which  the  king  bound  himself  to  keep 
only  such  rights  of  the  church,  and  such  customs  of  the  realm,  as 
were  “not  prejudicial  to  his  jurisdiction  and  imperial  duty.” — See 
it  in  Ellis,  vol.  i.  title-page. 


AMBITION  OF  SOMERSET. 


239 


“ of  Eome  be  banished,  and  images  be  removed ; to  chap. 
“ reward  virtue,  and  revenge  vice ; to  justify  the  in-  a.d.  1547, 
“ nocent  and  relieve  the  poor  ; to  repress  violence,  and 
“ execute  justice.  Let  him  do  this,  and  he  would 
“become  a second  Josias,  whose  fame  would  remain 
“ to  the  end  of  days.”  The  ceremony  was  concluded 
with  a solemn  high  mass,  sung  by  the  archbishop.1 

As  soon  as  Henry  YI.  had  been  crowned  at  the  age 
of  eight  years,  his  uncle,  the  duke  of  Gloucester,  was 
compelled  to  resign  the  office  of  protector,  and  to 
content  himself  with  the  title  of  prime  counsellor.2 
But  this  precedent  did  not  accord  with  the  ambition 
of  Somerset,  who,  instead  of  descending  from  the 
height  to  which  he  had  risen,  aspired  to  render  himself 
entirely  independent  of  his  colleagues.  In  the  at- 
tempt he  could  rely  on  the  cordial  support  of  Cranmer, 
and  of  the  partisans  of  the  reformation ; but  he  antici- 
pated a formidable  opposition  from  the  legal  know- 
ledge and  undaunted  mind  of  the  chancellor,  the  new 
earl  of  Southampton.  The  conduct  of  that  nobleman 
during  the  last  reign  was  an  earnest  of  his  resistance 
to  any  measure  which  might  tend  to  additional  inno- 
vations in  religion  ; and  his  influence  had  been  proved 
on  a recent  occasion,  when,  to  the  mortification  of 
Somerset,  he  had  reduced  the  office  of  protector  to 
a mere  title  without  actual  authority.  But  the  im- 
prudence of  Southampton  furnished  his  enemies  with 
weapons  against  himself.  Unable  to  attend  at  the 
same  time  to  the  daily  deliberations  of  the  council, 
and  his  duties  in  the  Chancery,  he  had,  without  con- 
sulting his  colleagues,  put  the  great  seal  to  a commis- 
sion, empowering  in  the  king’s  name  four  masters  to  Feb.  18. 
hear  all  manner  of  causes  in  his  absence,  and  giving 
1 Strype’s  Cranmer,  144.  2 Rot.  Pari.  iv.  337. 


240 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  to  their  decrees  the  same  force  as  if  they  had  been 
ad.  i547.  pronounced  by  the  chancellor  himself,  provided  that 
before  enrolment  they  were  ratified  with  his  signature, 
ivb.  28.  A petition  again st  this  arrangement  was  presented  by 
several  lawyers  at  the  secret  suggestion  of  the  pro- 
tector; by  the  council  it  was  referred  to  the  judges  ; 
and  the  judges  twice  returned  the  same  answer,  that 
the  chancellor,  by  affixing  the  great  seal  without 
sufficient  warrant  to  the  commission,  had  been  guilty 
of  an  offence  against  the  king,  which  at  common  law 
was  punishable  with  the  loss  of  office,  and  fine  and 
March  6.  imprisonment  at  the  royal  pleasure.  I11  his  own 
defence,  Southampton  argued  that  the  commission 
was  legal,  and  that  he  had  been  competent  to  issue 
it  without  requesting  the  assent  of  his  colleagues ; 
that,  even  admitting  it  to  be  illegal,  they  could  only 
revoke  it,  to  which  he  had  no  objection  ; that  he 
held  his  office  by  patent  from  the  late  king ; and  that 
they,  as  executors,  were  not  authorized  by  the  will  to 
deprive  him  of  it.  Finding,  however,  that  it  was  in  vain 
to  contend  against  the  majority,  he  made  his  submis- 
sion, and  was  suffered  to  retire  to  his  residence  at  Ely 
House.  The  same  evening  he  resigned  the  seal, 
which  was  given  to  the  lord  St.  John,  and  received 
an  order  to  remain  a prisoner  in  his  own  house,  and 
to  wait  the  decision  of  the  council  respecting  the 
amount  of  his  fine.1  What  precedent  the  chancellor 
might  have  for  his  conduct  is  uncertain.  The  com- 
mission, which  he  had  issued  without  warrant,  seems 
unjustifiable;  but  his  deprivation  for  a mere  error  in 
judgment  was  censured  as  harsh  and  tyrannical. 

The  next  measure  adopted  by  Somerset  disclosed 
the  real  cause  of  Southampton’s  disgrace.  Though 
1 Burnet,  ii.  15.  Records,  96. 


SOMERSET  INDEPENDENT  OF  THE  COUNCIL.  241 


the  duke  possessed  the  title  of  protector,  he  had  been 
compelled  to  accept  it  on  the  condition  that  he  should 
never  act  without  the  assent  of  the  majority  of  the 
council ; now  he  procured  letters  patent  under  the 
great  seal,  conferring  on  himself  alone  the  whole 
authority  of  the  crown.  This  extraordinary  instrument 
confirmed  his  former  appointment,  and  ratified  all 
his  acts  under  it;  swept  away  the  two  separate 
councils  appointed  by  the  will ; confounded  the  ex- 
ecutors and  their  advisers  under  the  common  name 
of  counsellors  to  the  king ; and  authorized  the  pro- 
tector to  swell  their  number  to  an  unlimited  extent 
by  the  addition  of  such  persons  as  he  might  think 
proper,  and  to  select  from  the  whole  body  a few 
individuals,  who  should  form  the  privy  council.  It 
did  not,  however,  bind  him  to  follow  their  advice. 
He  was  still  empowered  to  act  independently,  and 
in  every  case  to  decide  according  to  his  own  judg- 
ment, till  the  king  should  have  completed  his  eigh- 
teenth year.1  Two  months  had  not  yet  elapsed  since 
the  death  of  Henry ; and,  in  that  short  space,  the 
whole  frame  of  government  settled  by  his  will  had 
been  dissolved,  and  the  authority  with  which  he  had 
invested  his  executors  had  been  suppressed,  by  the 
very  men  to  whom  he  had  given  his  confidence,  and 
who  had  solemnly  sworn  to  fulfil  his  intentions.  If 
was  asked  on  what  principle  of  law  or  reason  the 
present  revolution  had  been  effected.  If  the  will 
possessed  any  force,  the  executors  could  not  transfer 
to  one  person  all  those  powers  which  it  had  confided 
to  the  joint  wisdom  of  sixteen  ; if  it  did  not,  then  they 

1 Burnet,  ii.  15.  Records,  98.  It  was  signed  by  Somerset  him- 
self, Cranmer,  St.  John,  Russell,  Northampton,  Brown,  and  Paget, 
executors,  and  by  Cheyney,  one  of  their  advisers. 

YOL.  V.  R 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


March  12. 


242 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


March.  10. 


March  31. 


June  19. 


were  unauthorized  individuals,  and  incompetent  to 
new-model  the  government  of  the  realm. 

It  was  observed,  that  the  intelligence  of  the  death 
of  Henry  had  made  a deep  impression  on  the  mind 
of  the  king  of  France.  That  monarch  entertained  a 
notion  that  the  duration  of  their  lives  was  limited 
to  the  same  year ; and  sought  in  vain  to  divert  his 
melancholy  by  change  of  residence  and  the  pleasures 
of  the  chase.  At  the  same  time  he  appeared  to  feel 
an  affection  for  the  son  of  his  former  friend ; a pro- 
posal was  made  and  accepted  to  renew  the  alliance 
between  the  crowns ; and  messengers  had  already 
been  appointed  to  receive  the  oaths  of  the  two  mon- 
archs,  when  Francis  expired  at  Bambouillet,  about 
two  months  after  the  death  of  his  English  brother.1 
His  son  and  successor  Henry  II.  pursued  a very 
different  policy,  under  the  guidance  of  the  duke  of 
Guise  and  the  cardinal  of  Lorrain.  He  felt  a deep 
interest  in  the  fortunes  of  the  infant  queen  of  Scot- 
land ; and,  when  the  treaty  with  England  was  offered 
to  him  for  signature,  refused  to  shackle  himself  with 
engagements,  which  might  prevent  him  from  espousing 
her  cause.  Still  appearances  of  amity  were  preserved. 
As  Francis  had  ordered  a solemn  service  to  be  per- 
formed for  Henry  in  the  cathedral  of  Paris,  so,  to 
return  the  compliment,  Cranmer  was  employed  to 
sing  a mass  of  requiem  for  Francis  in  the  church  of 
St.  Paul.2  But  the  sequel  showed  that  the  jealousy 

1 Rymer,  xv.  139 — 142,  149. 

a Stowe,  594.  The  name  of  the  ambassador  was  Vielleville,  who 
was  so  delighted  with  the  national  sports  of  bull-baiting  and  bear- 
baiting,  that  he  undertook  to  introduce  these  elegant  amusements 
among  his  countrymen,  and  took  back  with  him  a bull  and  bull-dogs 
to  France.  For  some  years  bull-baiting  continued  to  be  in  high 
favour,  but  fell  into  disuse  during  the  religious  wars  which  followed. 
— Mem.  xxviii.  331. 


MURDER  OF  BEATON.  243 

of  the  French  cabinet  was  not  without  foundation. 
The  protector  was  at  the  very  time  busily  employed 
in  levying  troops  at  home ; his  secret  agents  hired 
bands  of  discharged  veterans  in  Germany,  Italy,  and 
Spain;  and  an  active  correspondence  was  kept  up 
between  the  council  and  the  murderers  of  Cardinal 
Beaton  in  Scotland.  But,  to  introduce  these  new 
allies  to  the  notice  of  the  reader,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  revert  to  the  year  1544. 

It  was  in  that  year  that  Henry,  foiled  by  the  car- 
dinal in  his  attempt  to  obtain  the  custody  of  the 
young  queen,  despatched  the  earl  of  Hertford  to  invade 
Scotland  at  the  head  of  a powerful  army.1  He  had 
repeatedly  signified  a wish  to  his  Scottish  adherents 
to  have  Beaton  seized,  and  sent  a prisoner  to  England; 
and  now  a person  named  Wishart  came  to  Hertford, 
and  by  him  was  forwarded  to  Henry,  the  bearer  of  an 
offer  from  ICirkaldy,  the  master  of  Rothes,  and  John 
Charteris,  “ to  apprehend  or  slee  the  cardinal”  in  one 
of  his  journeys  through  Fife.2  We  know  not  what 
answer  he  received ; probably  it  was  the  same  as  was 
given  the  next  year  to  the  earl  of  Cassilis,  who, 
having  visited  the  king,  informed  Sadler,  on  his  re- 
turn to  Scotland,  that  his  friends  would  murder  the 
cardinal  for  a reward  proportioned  to  their  services. 
Henry  was  unwilling  to  commit  himself  by  the  express 
approbation  of  the  crime ; and  Sadler  was  instructed 
to  reply  that,  if  he  were  in  the  place  of  Cassilis,  he 

1 He  was  instructed  “ to  raze  to  the  ground  the  castle  of  Edin- 
11  burgh,  Holyrood  House,  Leith,  and  the  villages,  and  to  put  man, 
“ woman,  and  child  to  the  sword,  wherever  resistance  was  offered; 
“ and  then  to  proceed  to  the  cardinal’s  town  of  St.  Andrew’s,  not  to 
“ leave  there  a stone  or  a stick  standing,  and  not  to  spare  a living 
“ creature  within  the  same.” — See  these  most  barbarous  instruc- 
tions in  Tytler,  vi.  473. 

2 Keith,  44.  Tytler,  vi.  456. 

R 2 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


244 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


May  29. 


would  do  the  deed,  and  trust  to  the  king’s  gratitude 
for  the  reward.1  Thev,  however,  required  the  royal 
assurance ; Crichton,  laird  of  Brunston,  repeated  the 
offer ; and  though  he  received  the  same  answer,  con- 
tinued to  correspond  with  Henry  on  the  subject.  At 
last  revenge  stimulated  the  conspirators  to  do  that,  to 
which  they  had  hitherto  been  tempted  by  the  prospect 
of  pecuniary  remuneration.  Under  their  protection 
George  Wishart,  perhaps  the  same  who  had  conveyed 
the  first  offer  to  Henry,2  had  preached  for  some  time 
the  new  gospel,  and  been  the  exciting  cause  of  re- 
peated riots.  He  had  the  misfortune,  however,  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  Beaton,  by  whose  orders  he  was 
condemned  and  executed  at  St.  Andrew’s,  being  hanged 
for  sedition,  and  burnt  for  heresy.  To  this  provo- 
cation was  added  a private  quarrel  between  the  car- 
dinal and  the  master  of  Bothes,  respecting  an  estate 
in  Fife ; and  only  two  months  after  the  death  of 
Wishart,  that  young  nobleman,  Kirkaldy,  and  others, 
“were  stirred  up  by  the  Lord,”  if  we  may  believe 
Foxe,3  to  make  the  attempt  which  they  had  so  long 
meditated.  Profiting  of  the  negligence  of  the  warder, 
they  entered  the  castle  of  St.  Andrew’s  at  an  early 
hour,  and  slew  the  cardinal  in  his  bed-chamber.  At 
the  first  alarm  the  citizens  hastened  to  the  defence  of 
their  archbishop ; but,  at  the  sight  of  the  dead  body 

1 11  His  highness  not  reputing  the  fact  mete  to  be  set  forward 
“ expressly  by  his  majesty,  will  not  seem  to  have  to  do  in  it,  and 

“ yet  not  misliking  the  offer,  tliinketh  good  that  Mr.  Sadler 

“ should  say  that  if  he  were  in  the  earl  of  Cassillis  place,”  &c. — 
Ty tier’s  History  of  Scotland,  461.  These  deeds  of  darkness  had 
escaped  the  notice  of  historians  during  three  centuries,  but  have  been 
lately  exposed  to  the  public  eye  by  the  industry  and  research  of 
Mr.  Tytler. 

2 This  has  been  often  asserted,  and  is  rendered  probable  by  the 

known  connection  between  him  and  all  the  parties  to  these  attempts 
against  the  cardinal.  3 Foxe,  526. 


TREATY  WITH  THE  MURDERERS. 


245 


suspended  from  a window,  they  retired  to  their  homes,  chap. 
The  castle  had  been  lately  fortified  and  provisioned ; a.d.  1547. 
Knox,  the  Scottish  reformer,  to  show  his  approbation 
of  “ the  godly  fact/’  led  one  hundred  and  forty  of  his 
disciples  to  the  aid  of  the  murderers ; and  a resolution 
was  formed  by  the  whole  body  to  defend  themselves 
against  all  opponents,  and  to  solicit  the  protection  of 
the  king  of  England.  Neither  did  the  treaty  of 
Campes  disappoint  their  hopes.  If  the  Scots  were 
included  in  it,  yet  Henry  would  only  bind  himself  to 
abstain  from  hostilities,  provided  no  additional  provo- 
cation were  given;  and,  on  the  other  side,  the  earl  of  Junt97. 
Arran,  the  governor,  refused  to  accept  of  any  peace, 
unless  the  Scottish  fortresses,  in  possession  of  the 
English,  were  restored,  and  the  murderers  of  Beaton 
were  abandoned  to  their  fate. 

After  some  negotiation  Arran  sat  down  before  the  sept.  16. 
castle ; but  though  he  bore  with  patience  the  severity 
of  the  winter,  though  he  repulsed  an  English  squadron 
conveying  money  and  military  stores,  the  obstinacy 
of  the  garrison  defeated  every  attempt ; and  he  was  at 
last  compelled  to  break  up  the  siege,  that  he  might 
preside  at  a convention  of  the  three  estates  in  the  FSel>7’ 
capital.  The  death  of  Henry  made  no  alteration  in 
the  policy  of  the  English  cabinet.  The  protector  March  9- 
hastily  concluded  two  treaties  with  the  murderers  ; by 
the  first  of  which  they  bound  themselves  to  procure, 
with  all  their  power,  the  marriage  of  their  infant 
sovereign  with  Edward  VI.,  and  never  to  surrender 
the  castle  during  her  minority  to  any  Scotsman  with- 
out a previous  license  in  writing  from  the  English 
king  and  the  protector ; by  the  second  they  engaged  March  15. 
to  give  effectual  aid  to  the  English  army  which  should 
enter  Scotland,  for  the  purpose- of  obtaining  possession 


246 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


March  19. 


June. 


July  23. 


July  30. 


of  the  young  queen,  and  to  deliver  the  castle  to 
English  commissioners,  as  soon  as  she  should  come 
into  the  hands  of  Edward  YI.  or  the  marriage  be- 
tween them  should  be  solemnized.  The  English 
government  in  return  granted  pensions  to  each  of 
the  chiefs,  and  undertook  to  pay  half-yearly  the  wages 
of  a garrison  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  men.1 

The  second  of  these  treaties  was  hardly  signed 
before  it  was  treacherously  communicated  to  Arran. 
From  it  he  discovered  the  object  of  the  protector; 
and  immediately  published  a proclamation,  ordering 
all  fencible  men  to  assemble,  on  forty  days’  notice,  at 
a given  place,  with  provisions  for  a month,  that  they 
might  be  prepared  to  repel  the  threatened  invasion 
of  their  country.  For  greater  security  he  applied 
to  the  new  king  of  France,  who  cheerfully  confirmed 
the  ancient  alliance  between  the  two  kingdoms,  and 
added  a promise  of  succour  both  in  men  and  money. 
The  irruptions  of  the  English  marchers  had  called 
Arran  to  the  borders,  where  he  razed  to  the  ground 
the  castle  of  Langhope,  but  was  called  from  the 
siege  of  Cawmyllis  to  St.  Andrew’s  by  the  arrival  of 
Strozzi,  prior  of  Capua,  with  a fleet  of  sixteen  French 
galleys.  The  combined  forces  besieged  the  castle ; a 
considerable  breach  was  made  by  the  French  artillery ; 
and  the  garrison  surrendered  with  a promise  of  their 
lives.  The  prisoners  were  conveyed  to  France,  and 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  Henry,  who  confined  some 
of  them  in  the  fortresses  on  the  coast  of  Bretagne, 
and  sent  the  others,  amongst  whom  was  the  celebrated 

1 Rym.  xv.  132,  144.  The  pension  to  the  master  of  Rothes  was 
280 /. ; to  Kirkaldy,  200 /.  per  annum.  For  the  pay  of  the  garrison, 
&c.,  they  received  in  February  1,180/.,  and  in  May  1,300/. — 
Burnet,  ii.  8, 31. 


THE  PROTECTOR  INVADES  SCOTLAND. 


247 


preacher  John  Knox,  to  labour  in  the  galleys,  from 
which  they  were  not  released  before  1550.  Arran 
recovered  his  eldest  son,  who  had  been  detained  a 
captive  ever  since  the  assassination,  and  demolished 
the  works,  that  the  place  might  not  hereafter  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  English,  and  be  held  by  them 
to  the  terror  of  the  open  country.1 

Somerset,  taking  with  him  the  new  earl  of  War- 
wick, as  second  in  command,  crossed  the  Tweed2  at 
the  head  of  twenty  thousand  men,  and  directed  his 
march  upon  Edinburgh  ; while  the  fleet  of  twenty- 
four  galleys  and  an  equal  number  of  store-ships,  under 
Lord  Clinton,  crept  along  the  shore  without  losing 
sight  of  the  army.3  To  meet  this  invasion  Arran 
had  despatched  the  fire-cross  from  clan  to  clan,  and 
had  ordered  every  Scotsman  to  join  his  standard  at 
Musselburgh  ; but  he  soon  found  the  multitude  too 
numerous  for  any  useful  purpose,  and,  having  selected 
thirty  thousand  men,  dismissed  the  rest  to  their  homes. 
The  two  armies  were  soon  in  sight,  and  a bloody 
rencounter  between  the  Scottish  and  English  cavalry 
at  Falside  taught  them  to  respect  each  other.4 

1 Epist.  Beg.  Scot.  ii.  380.  Keith,  53.  Leslie,  461. 

2 Mr.  Tytler  has  discovered  in  the  State  Papers  that  two  hundred 
Scottish  noblemen  and  gentlemen  had  treasonably  engaged  to  join 
him  in  Scotland. — Hist,  vi,  18 — 21. 

3 See  the  numbers  in  Holinshed,  980.  The  instructions  of  the 
admiral  are  in  Chron.  Catal.  p.  294.  The  master  of  Buthven  was 
in  the  fleet,  who  had  promised  to  betray  Perth  into  the  hands  of  the 
English,  with  the  aid  of  his  father,  Lord  Ruthven  of  Gowrie  : and  Sir 
John  Luttrell  was  to  furnish  the  names  of  the  Scots  “ which  had 
“ fay  led  in  their  fayth  after  assurance  made,”  that  their  lands  might 
be  ravaged. — Ibid. 

4 Haywood  tells  us  that  the  loss  of  the  Scots  was  thirteen  hun- 
dred men ; of  the  English,  one  Spanish  hackbutter  wounded,  and 
three  cavalry  officers  taken  in  the  pursuit. — Haywood,  282.  Leslie, 
on  the  contrary,  says  that  the  loss  was  equal,  about  one  thousand 
men  on  each  side. — Leslie,  462. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


Sept.  2. 


Sept.  9. 


248 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 
Sept.  10. 


The  next  morning  Arran  passed  the  Eske  ; a move- 
ment which  led  to  the  great  battle  of  Pinkencleugh. 
The  Scottish  army,  consisting  almost  entirely  of  foot- 
men, was  divided  into  three  bodies,  each  of  which, 
marching  in  close  order,  presented  a dense  forest  of 
pikes.  The  lord  Grey,  commander  of  the  English 
gens  d’armes,  hoping  to  take  advantage  of  some  appa- 
rent confusion  in  the  most  advanced  of  these  bodies, 
ordered  his  men  to  charge  it  in  flank.  They  paid 
severely  for  their  temerity.  The  bravest  of  them  fell ; 
their  commander  was  wounded  with  a pike  in  the  _ 
mouth  ; and  the  colours  were  nearly  captured.  This 
check  was,  however,  repaired  by  the  steadiness  of  the 
Italian  and  Spanish  mercenaries,  who,  being  mounted, 
rode  towards  the  enemy,  and  halting  at  a short  dis- 
tance, discharged  their  fire-arms  into  the  first  ranks,  M 
whilst  the  archers  following  them  sent  volleys  of 
arrows  over  the  heads  of  the  mercenaries  into  the 
more  distant  part  of  the  hostile  column.  At  the 
same  time  a raking  fire  was  opened  on  the  Scots  from 
a galley  and  two  pinnaces  in  the  bay ; and  a battery 
of  guns  from  a neighbouring  eminence  scattered 
destruction  amidst  the  dense  and  exposed  mass.  The 
protector  did  not  suffer  the  opportunity  to  escape 
him.  Having  rallied  the  fugitives,  he  led  the  whole 
army  to  the  attack.  The  Scots  wavered,  broke,  and 
fled.  The  pursuit  was  continued  for  several  hours, 
and  the  slain  on  the  part  of  the  vanquished  were  said 
to  amount  at  a low  computation  to  eight  thousand 
men.  The  earl  of  Huntley,  chancellor  of  Scotland, 
the  lords  Yester  and  Wemyss,  and  the  master  of 
Semple,  were  among  the  prisoners.1 


1 Leslie,  464.  Buchan,  1.  xv.  Holinsh.  984.  Hayward,  285. 


(/ 


RELIGIOUS  INNOVATIONS. 


249 


Sept.  18. 


From  the  field  of  battle  the  conqueror  marched  to  chap. 
Leith,  spent  four  days  in  plundering  the  town  and  a.d.  1547. 
the  neighbouring  villages,  and  hastily  retraced  his 
steps,  followed  by  Arran  at  the  head  of  a small  but 
active  body  of  cavalry.  This  sudden  retreat,  after  so-- 
brilliant  a victory,  surprised  both  his  friends  and  foes. 

It  could  not  originate  from  want  of  provisions,  or 
the  intemperance  of  the  season,  or  the  approach  of 
a superior  enemy.  By  some  it  was  said  that,  intoxi- 
cated with  vanity,  he  was  eager  to  enjoy  the  applause 
of  the  people,  and  to  receive  the  thanks  of  his 
nephew ; by  others  it  was  believed  that  the  secret 
intrigues  of  his  brother  the  lord  admiral  had  induced 
him  to  forego  the  advantages  of  victory,  and  to  hasten 
back  to  the  court.  The  expedition  was  begun  and 

ended  within  the  short  period  of  sixteen  days.  

The  late  king  was  doomed  to  the  usual  fate  of 
despotic  monarchs  after  their  deaths.  The  very  men 
who  during  his  life  had  been  the  obsequious  ministers 
of  his  will,  were  now  the  first  to  overturn  his  favourite 
projects.  Somerset  and  his  associates  had  already  j 
established  a different  form  of  government ; they  now 
undertook  to  establish  a different  religious  creed,  j 
Under  Henry  they  had  deemed  it  prudent  to  conceal 
their  attachment  to  the  new  gospel ; now,  freed  from 
restraint,  they  openly  professed  themselves  its  patrons, 
and  aided  its  diffusion  with  all  the  influence  of  the 
crown.  Their  zeal  was  the  more  active,  as  it  was 
stimulated  by  the  prospect  of  reward.  For,  though 
they  were  the  depositaries  of  the  sovereign  authority, 
they  had  yet  to  make  their  private  fortunes  ; and  for 
that  purpose  they  looked  with  eagerness  to  the  pos- 
sessions of  the  church,  from  which,  though  much  had 
been  torn  during  the  havoc  of  the  last  reign,  much 


1 


f 


k 


250  EDWARD  VI. 

chap,  still  remained  to  be  gleaned.1  From  the  young  king 
a.d.  1547.  they  could  experience  no  opposition  now,  they  feared 
no  resentment  hereafter.  The  men  to  whom  his 
education  had  been  intrusted  by  Henry  were  zealous 
though  secret  partisans  of  the  reformed  doctrines. 
They  had  made  it  their  chief  care  to  transfuse  the 
new  opinions  into  the  mind  of  their  royal  pupil ; 
Edward  already  believed  that  the  worship  so  rigor- 
ously enforced  by  his  father  was  idolatrous ; and  there 
could  be  little  doubt  that  his  early  prepossessions 
would,  as  he  advanced  in  age,  acquire  strength  from 
the  industry  of  his  teachers,  and  the  approbation  of 
his  counsellors. 

Still,  to  change  the  established  creed  during  his 
minority  must  have  appeared  an  undertaking  of  some 
difficulty  and  danger.  There  was  no  certainty  that 
the  people  would  pay  to  the  protector  and  his  advisers 
that  deference  which  had  been  extorted  by  the  theo- 
logical despotism  of  the  late  monarch ; and  a second 
pilgrimage  of  grace,  excited  by  religious  innovations, 
might  speedily  overturn  their  authority.  On  this 
account  they  determined  to  proceed  with  steady  but 
cautious  steps.  Among  their  own  colleagues  there 
were  only  two  of  whose  sentiments  they  were  doubtful, 
Wriothesley  and  the  bishop  of  Durham.  The  first,  as 
the  reader  has  seen,  was  already  excluded  from  the 
council ; pretexts  were  invented  to  confine  the  prelate 
almost  entirely  to  his  diocese ; and  the  conduct  of  the 
business  was  committed  to  the  policy  and  moderation 
of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

That  prelate  began  the  attempt  by  giving  to  his 
/ brother  bishops  a very  intelligible  hint,  that  the 


Heylin,  33.  Godwin,  88,  91. 


ROYAL  VISITATION. 


251 


possession  of  tlieir  sees  depended  on  their  compliance  / chap. 
with  the  pleasure  of  the  council.  Arguing  thafTns  a.d.  i547. 
ecclesiastical  authority,  since  it  emanated  from  the 
erown,  must  have  expired  with  the  late  king,  he  peti-  Feb.  7 
bioned  to  be  restored  to  his  former  jurisdiction,  and 
iccepted  a new  commission  to  execute  the  functions 
if  an  archbishop,  till  such  commission  should  he  re- 
voked by  the  sovereign.1  Many,  probably  all,  of  his 
colleagues,  were  compelled  to  follow  the  example  of 
:he  metropolitan. 

The  next  step  was  to  establish  a royal  visitation.  , May4. 
For  that  purpose  the  kingdom  was  divided  into  six 
circuits,  to  each  of  which  was  assigned  a certain 
lumber  of  visitors,  partly  clergymen  and  partly  lay- 
nen.  The  moment  they  arrived  in  any  diocese,  the 
exercise  of  spiritual  authority  by  every  other  person 
ceased.  They  summoned  before  them  the  bishop, 
he  clergy,  and  eight,  six,  or  four  of  the  principal 
louseholders  from  each  parish  ; administered  the  oaths 
>f  allegiance  and  supremacy;  required  answers  upon 
>ath  to  every  question  which  they  thought  proper  to 
)ut,  and  exacted  a promise  of  obedience  to  the  royal 
nj unctions.2  These  injunctions  amounted  in  number 
o thirty-seven ; they  regarded  matters  of  religious 
)ractice  and  doctrine;  and  were  for  the  most  part 
o framed,  that,  under  the  pretext  of  abolishing 
buses,  they  might  pave  the  way  for  subsequent 
nnovations.  With  them  was  delivered  a book  of 
lomilies  to  be  read  in  every  church  on  Sundays  and 
lolidays,  with  an  order  that  each  clergyman  should 
provide  for  himself,  and  each  parish  for  the  congrega- 
ion,  one  copy  of  the  paraphrase  of  Erasmus  on  the 

1 Wilkins,  iv.  2. 

2 Ibid,  ii,  14,  17.  Collier,  ii.  Records. 


% 


252 


EDWARD  VI. 


ohap.  New  Testament.  But  the  same  policy  which  thus 
a.d.  i547.  supplied  books  of  instruction  was  careful  to  limit  the 
number  of  instructors ; and  the  power  of  preaching 
was,  by  successive  restrictions,  confined  at  last  to 
such  clergymen  only  as  should  obtain  licenses  from 
the  protector  or  the  metropolitan.1  The  object  was 
evident : the  people  heard  no  other  doctrines  than 
those  which  were  contained  in  the  homilies,  for  the 
most  part  the  composition  of  the  archbishop,  or  which 
were  delivered  by  the  preachers,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
echo  his  opinions,  and  to  inveigh  against  the  more 
ancient  creed. 

Among  the  prelates  there  was  no  individual  whom 
the  men  of  the  new  learning  more  feared,  or  those  of 
the  old  learning  more  respected,  for  his  erudition  and 
abilities,  his  spirit  and  influence,  than  Gardiner,  bishop 
_ of  Winchester.  That  prelate  before  the  visitation  of 
his  diocese  had  obtained  copies  of  the  homilies  and 
the  paraphrase,  and  immediately  commenced  a long 
and  animated  controversy  with  the  protector  and  the 
archbishop.  He  maintained  that  the  two  books  in 
several  instances  contradicted  each  other;  that  they 
inculcated  doctrines  irreconcilable  with  the  creed 
established  by  act  of  parliament  ; and  that  they 
contained  errors,  which  he  deemed  himself  able  to 
demonstrate  to  the  conviction  of  any  reasonable  man. 
In  his  letter  to  the  protector  he  urged  with  much 

1 Wilk.  iv.  27 % 30.  Even  the  very  bishops  could  not  preach  in 
their  own  dioceses  without  license. — See  two  instances  in  Strype, 
ii.  90.  Coverdale  was  so  delighted  with  the  injunctions,  the 
homilies,  and  the  paraphrase,  that  he  pronounced  the  young  king 
to  be  “ the  high  and  chief  admiral  of  the  great  navy  of  the  Lord  of 
“ Hosts,  principal  captain  and  governor  of  us  all  under  him ; the 
“ most  noble  ruler  of  his  ship,  even  our  most  comfortable  Noah, 
“ whom  the  eternal  God  hath  chosen  to  be  the  bringer  of  us1  unto 
“ rest  and  quietness." — Apud  Strype,  ii.  65. 

\ 


I 

OPPOSITION  OF  GARDINER.  253 

force,  that  Edward  was  too  young  to  understand,  ^Ay- 
Somerset  too  much  occupied,  to  study  subjects  of  a.d.  1547. 
controversy;  that  it  was  imprudent  to  disturb  the 
public  peace  during  the  king’s  minority,  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  supporting  the  theological  fancies  of  the 
metropolitan;  that  injunctions  issued  by  the  king 
could  not  invalidate  acts  of  parliament ; and  that, 
as  Cardinal  Wolsey  had  incurred  a praemunire,  though 
he  acted  under  the  royal  license,  so  every  clergyman, 
who  taught  the  doctrines  in  the  homilies  and  para- 
phrase, would  be  liable  to  the  penalties  enacted  by 
the  statute  of  the  Six  Articles,  though  he  might  plead 
a royal  injunction  in  his  favour.  To  Cranmer  he  wrote 
in  a different  tone,  defying  him  to  prove  the  truth  of 
certain  doctrines  inculcated  in  the  book  of  homilies, 
and  reproaching  him  with  duplicity  in  now  repro- 
bating the  opinions  which  he  had  so  zealously  taught 
during  the  life  of  the  late  king.1  In  consequence  of 
these  letters  he  was  summoned  before  the  council, 
and  required  to  promise  obedience  to  the  royal  injunc- 
tions. He  replied  that  he  was  not  bound  to  answer, 
unless  the  injunctions  were  tendered  to  him.  Let 
them  wait  till  the  visitors  arrived  in  his  diocese.  If 
he  should  then  refuse,  they  might  determine  whether 
that  refusal  were  a contempt  of  the  royal  authority  or 
not.  But  this  objection  was  overruled ; Cranmer 
gladly  embraced  any  pretext  to  silence  so  dangerous 

1 “Which,  if  it  had  been  so”  (if  the  doctrine  in  the  late  king’s 
book  had  been  erroneous),  “ I ought  to  think  your  grace  would 
“ not,  for  all  princes  christened,  being  so  high  a bishop  as  ye  be, 

“ have  yielded  unto.  For  obedire  oportet  Deo  magis  quam  homini- 
“ bus.  And  therefore,  after  your  grace  hath  four  years  continually 
“ lived  in  agreement  of  that  doctrine,  under  our  late  sovereign  lord, 

“ now  so  suddenly  after  his  death  to  write  to  me,  that  his  highness 
“ was  seduced,  it  is,  I assure  you,  a very  strange  speech.” — Strype’s 
Cranmer,  App.  p.  74. 


254 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IY. 

A.D.  1547. 


Nov.  4. 


an  opponent  during  the  approaching  parliament ; and 
Gardiner,  though  he  could  not  be  charged  with 
any  offence  against  the  law,  was  committed  to  the 
Fleet,  and  detained  a close  prisoner  till  the  end  of 
the  session.1 

The  proceedings  of  this  parliament  are  deserving  of 
the  reader’s  attention.  Many  of  the  chantries,  colleges, 
and  free  chapels,  though  given  to  Henry  VIII.  by  a 
late  act,  had  escaped  the  rapacious  grasp  of  that 
monarch.  It  was  now  proposed  to  place  these  with 
all  the  funds  destined  for  the  support  of  obits,  anni- 
versaries, and  church-lights,  and  all  guild  lands  possessed 
by  fraternities  for  the  same  purpose,  at  the  disposal  of 
the  king,  that  he  might  employ  them  in  providing  for 
the  poor,  augmenting  the  income  of  vicarages,  paying 
the  salaries  of  preachers,  and  endowing  free  schools 
for  the  diffusion  of  learning.2  The  archbishop,  aware 
of  the  real  object  of  the  bill,  spoke  against  it  at  first 
with  some  warmth.  But,  as  the  harpies  of  the  court 

1 See  the  correspondence  in  Foxe,  ii.  3/5 — 70.  During  Gardiner’s 
confinement,  attempts  were  made  to  obtain  his  co-operation  in  the 
new  plan  of  reform.  On  one  occasion  the  archbishop  told  him  that 
“ he  liked  nothing  unless  he  did  it  himself.”  He  replied,  that  “ he 
u was  not  guilty  of  such  obstinacy ; and  that  he  had  never  been 
“ author  yet  of  any  one  thing  either  temporal  or  spiritual ; for  which 
“ he  thanked  God.”  A hint  was  given  that  his  compliance  might 
be  rewarded  with  a place  in  the  council,  and  an  addition  in  his  in- 
come. But  he  answered  indignantly,  that  his  character  and  con- 
science forbade  it;  and  that,  “ if  he  agreed  on  such  terms,  he  should 
“ deserve  to  be  whipped  in  every  market-town  in  the  realm,  and 
11  then  to  be  hanged  for  an  example  as  the  veriest  varlet  that  ever 
11  was  bishop  in  any  realm  christened.” — Ibid.  64,  65. 

2 Our  law-books  teach  that,  by  the  statute  passed  on  this  occa- 
sion, lands  and  goods  subsequently  given  for  superstitious  uses,  are 
forfeited  to  the  king ; yet  the  operation  of  the  statute  is  expressly 
limited  to  lands  and  goods  belonging  to  colleges  and  chantries  which 
existed  within  the  five  last  years,  or  given  for  anniversaries,  obits, 
and  lights  kept  or  maintained  within  “ the  five  yeres  next  before  the 
“ saide  first  daie  of  this  present  parliament  ” — Stat.  of  Realm,  iv. 
25,  26.  There  is  nothing  in  the  act  to  make  it  prospective. 


GRANT  OF  CHANTRIES. 


255 


were  eager  to  pounce  on  their  prey,  he  deemed  it  chap. 
prudent  to  withdraw  his  opposition;  and  it  was  passed  a.d.  1547 
n the  Lords  by  a triumphant  majority.1  In  the  ! 
Commons  a strong  objection  was  made  to  that  clause  i 
vhich  went  to  deprive  the  guilds  of  their  lands  ; but 
he  leaders  of  the  opposition,  the  members  for  Lynn 
aid  Coventry  were  silenced  by  a promise  that  the 
rown  should  restore  to  those  towns  the  landsjpf„„ 
diich  they  might  be  deprived  by  the  act.  A saving 
lause  was  added  to  secure  to  all  persons  such  lands, 
mements,  tithes,  and  rents,  as  had  been  already 
ranted  to  them  either  by  the  late  or  the  presents 
|ng.a 


2.  But  if  the  ministers  sought  to  provide  for  the 
>vereign  and  for  themselves,  they  were  careful  to 
■pair  many  of  those  breaches  in  the  constitution 
hich  had  been  made  by  the  despotism  of  the  last 
■ign.  All  felonies  created  since  the  first  of 
^enry  VIII.  and  all  treasons  created  since  the 
yenty-fifth  of  Edward  III.  were  at  once  erased 
pm  the  statute-book ; the  privilege  of  clergy, 
ith  the  exception  of  a few  cases,  was  restored ; in 
mvictions  of  treason  two  witnesses  were  required; 
Le  laws  against  the  Lollards,  the  prohibition  of 
jading  the  Scriptures,  and  of  printing,  selling,  or 
taining  certain  English  publications ; all  enactments 
specting  doctrine  and  matters  of  religion,  and  the 
atute  which  gave  to  the  royal  proclamations  the 


1 On  the  first  division  in  the  Lords  the  minority  consisted  of  the 
jhopsof  Canterbury,  London,  Ely,  Norwich,  Hereford,  Worcester, 
d Chichester.  At  the  last  Canterbury  and  Worcester  were  not  in 
3 house,  and  Norwich  voted  with  the  Court. — Journals,  308,  313. 

2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  24.  The  chantries  and  free  chapels  were 
'ued  at  2,593/.  per  annum,  and  sold  for  46,249/.  14s. — Strype,  ii. 
c.  85.  A great  number  of  grammar-schools  were  founded  chiefly 
t of  the  chantry  lands. — Id.  535. 


256 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  force  of  law,  were  repealed  ; and  in  place  of  the  act 
A.i).  1^47.  of  the  twenty-eighth  of  the  late  king,  which  em- 
powered his  heir,  if  he  were  a minor  at  the  time  of 
his  accession,  to  annul  afterwards  all  statutes  passed 
before  he  had  attained  the  full  age  of  twenty-four 
years,  was  substituted  another  to  the  same  effect, — 
hut  with  this  proviso,  that  though  he  might  deprive 
them  of  all  force  after  that  term,  he  could  not  in- 
validate them,  as  to  their  effects  during:  the  inter- 
mediate  period.1  It  should,  however,  be  observed, 
that  if,  by  the  repeal  of  so  many  statutes,  every  sort 
of  religious  restraint  was  removed  from  the  men  of 
the  new  learning,  it  was  not  intended  to  grant  any 
additional  liberty  to  those  of  the  old.  The  claim 
of  the  spiritual  supremacy  was  placed  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  other  rights  of  the  crown ; and  to 
deny  that  the  present  or  any  succeeding  king  was 
head  of  the  church  was  made  the  same  kind  of  capital 
offence,  as  to  deny  that  he  was  head  of  the  state.  A 
distinction  was,  however,  drawn  between  the  denial  by 
words  and  the  denial  by  writing,  imprinting,  or  deed 
The  latter  was  at  once  an  act  of  high  treason  ; the 
former  became  so  only  by  repetition.  The  first  offenct 
was  punishable  with  the  forfeiture  of  all  goods  anc 
chattels  and  imprisonment  at  the  royal  pleasure ; tin 
second  subjected  the  offender  to  all  the  penalties  o 
a prsemunire ; and  the  third  condemned  him  to  suffe 
as  a traitor  by  the  knife  of  the  executioner.2 

3.  The  convocation  had  been  assembled  at  th* 
same  time  as  the  parliament ; and  the  members  0 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  17,  18. 

2 Ibid.  19.  All  the  same  punishments  were  enacted  against  an 
person  who  should  deny  that  the  present  or  any  succeeding  king  w* 
king  of  France  or  of  Ireland,  or  should  maintain  that  any  othc 
person  was  or  ought  to  be  king  of  France  or  of  Ireland. — Ibid. 


PARLIAMENTARY  MEASURES. 


257 


CHAP. 
IY. 

-H.  1547- 

especting  religion.  To  this  petition  no  answer  was 
eturned ; but  two  questions  concerning  the  lawful- 
ess  of  marriage  in  the  clergy,  and  of  communion 
nder  both  kinds,  were  submitted  to  their  considera- 
ion.  The  first  of  these  was  carried  in  the  affirmative 
y a majority  of  almost  two-thirds,  and  a bill  in  its 
ivour  was  introduced  into  the  house  of  Commons; 
ut  its  advocates,  whether  they  apprehended  an  ob- 
fcinate  opposition  from  the  Lords,  or  were  content 
rith  the  advantage  which  they  had  gained,  permitted 
be  matter  to  sleep  for  the  present  session . The 
econd  was  approved  unanimously  ; and  a bill  was 
famed  on  that  decision.  It  stated,  that  the  minister - 
ag  of  the  blessed  sacrament  to  all  Christian  people 
nder  both  kinds,  of  bread  and  wine,  is  more  agree- 
ble  to  its  first  institution,  and  more  conformable  to 
he  common  practice  of  the  apostles  and  the  primitive 
hurch  for  five  hundred  years  ; and  therefore  enacts, 
hat  the  said  most  blessed  sacrament  shall  be  com- 
cionly  delivered  and  ministered  to  the  people  under 
>oth  kinds.  It  permits,  however,  communion  under 
»ne  kind,  when  necessity  may  require  it ; and  pro- 
esses  not  to  censure  any  foreign  church,  which  may 
etain  the  contrary  practice.  To  neutralize  the 
•pposition  of  the  prelates,  who  were  hostile  to 
his  bill,  it  was  artfully  appended  to  another,  which 
hey  most  anxiously  sought  to  carry,  prohibiting, 
mder  pain  of  fine  and  imprisonment,  the  application 
>f  scurrilous  and  offensive  language  to  the  sacrament 
>f  the  eucharist.  Thus  coupled  together  as  one 
yol.  v.  s 


he  lower  house,  anxious  to  recover  their  former  share 
a the  exercise  of  the  legislative  power,  petitioned  to 
e united  to  the  house  of  Commons,  or,  if  that  might 
ot  be  granted,  to  be  allowed  a negative  on  all  bills 


258 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


act,  they  passed  both  houses,  and  received  the  royal 
assent.1 

4.  In  conformity  with  the  opinion  so  often  incul- 
cated by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  it  was  declared  that  a 11 
jurisdiction,  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  is  derived 
from  the  king ; and  on  that  account  the  election  of 
bishops  was  withdrawn  from  the  deans  and  chapters  , 
as  a useless  and  unmeaning  form,  and  vested  imme- 
diately in  the  crown;  and  it  was  ordered  that  all 
citations  and  processes  of  archbishops  and  bishops, 
which  used  to  run  in  their  names,  should  thenceforth 
be  made  in  the  name  of  the  king,  but  tested  by  the 
bishop,  and  countersigned  by  his  commissary ; and 
that  all  official  documents  issued  from  their  courts 
should  be  sealed,  not  with  the  episcopal,  but  with  the 
royal  arms.2 

5.  The  mendicants,  who  had  formerly  obtained 
relief  at  the  gates  of  the  monasteries  and  convents, 
now  wandered  in  crowds  through  the  country,  and 
by  their  numbers  and  importunities  often  extorted 
alms  from  the  intimidated  passenger.  To  abate  this 
nuisance,  a statute  was  enacted,  which  will  call  to  the 
recollection  of  the  reader  the  barbarous  manners  of 
our  pagan  forefathers.  Whosoever  “ lived  idly  and 
“ loiteringly  for  the  space  of  three  days”  came  under 
the  description  of  a vagabond,  and  was  liable  to  the 
following  punishment.  Two  justices  of  the  peace 
might  order  the  letter  Y to  be  burnt  on  his  breast, 
and  adjudge  him  to  serve  the  informer  two  years 

\ as  his  slave.  His  master  was  bound  to  provide  him 
with  bread,  water,  and  refuse  meat ; might  fix  an  iron 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  2.  The  non-contents  were  the  bishops  of 
London,  Norwich,  Hereford,  Worcester,  and  Chichester. — Journals, 
306.  2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  3. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  SOMERSET. 


259 


ing  round  his  neck,  arm,  or  leg,  and  was  authorized  chap. 

0 compel  him  to  “ labour  at  any  work,  however  vile  a.d.  1547. 
: it  might  be,  by  beating,  chaining,  or  otherwise/’  If 

he  slave  absented  himself  a fortnight,  the  letter  S 
vas  burnt  on  his  cheek  or  forehead,  and  he  became 

1 slave  for  life  ; and  if  he  offended  a second  time  in 
ike  manner,  his  flight  subjected  him  to  the  penalties 
f felony.1  Two  years  later  this  severe  statute  was 
epealed.2 

6.  The  close  of  this  session  was  marked  by  a trans- 
ition without  parallel  in  our  history.  The  duke  of  August  n. 
lomerset,  preparatory  to  his  expedition  against  the 
Icots,  had  received  from  the  king  letters  patent 
xplanatory  of  his  original  commission.  By  these 
b was  declared  that  in  quality  of  “ governor  of  the 
royal  person,  and  protector  of  the  realm  and  people 
during  the  term  of  the  king’s  minority,”  he  was  the 
king’s  lieutenant  and  captain-general  of  war  by  sea 
* and  land,  possessing  all  the  authority  of  a com- 
‘ mander-in-chief,  with  the  power  of  conferring  the 
honour  of  knighthood,  of  baronage,  or  any  other 
: rank  of  nobility  in  reward  of  military  service,  and  of 
1 declaring  war  against,  or  of  concluding  peace  with, 
any  foreign  power,  according  to  his  own  judgment 
and  discretion.”3  Both  these  patents,  by  which  the 
hole  power  of  the  crown  was  vested  in  his  person, 
e had  surrendered  during  the  parliament  into  the 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  5.  With  respect  to  clerks  convicted  of 
;lony,  they,  if  they  were  entitled  to  purgation  in  the  bishop’s  court, 
ere  to  be  slaves  for  one  year,  if  not  so  entitled,  to  be  slaves  for  five 
iars. — Ibid. 

; Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  115.  Thus  the  statute  of  22  Hen.  VIII.  12, 
as  revived,  which  allowed  persons  to  beg  with  the  license  of  the 
tagistrates,  and  punish  beggars  without  license  by  whipping,  or  the 
ocks  for  three  days  and  three  nights. 

3 Rymer,  xv.  174. 

s 2 


260 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1547. 


hands  of  his  nephew,  and  had  received  in  place  < 4 
them  a new  commission,  which,  indeed,  restored  + * 
him,  with  an  unimportant  exception,  all  the  powers  0 ' 
the  former,  hut  at  the  same  time  made  the  duration 
of  his  office  dependent  on  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
king,  who  might  at  will  deprive  him  of  it  by  a writ 
under  the  great  seal  and  the  sign  manual.  What 
then  could  induce  the  protector,  who  was  now  in  the 
zenith  of  his  power,  to  consent  to  so  disadvantageous 
an  exchange?  No  reason  is  stated.  But  we  know 
that  great  misgivings  existed  with  regard  to  the  validity 
of  the  first  commission ; because  it  emanated  from 
the  council,  which  had  not  the  power  to  create  such 
an  office.1  This  was  an  inherent  defect,  which  cer- 
tainly could  not  be  cured  by  a second  commission 
proceeding  in  reality  from  the  same  source  ; but  it 
seems  to  have  been  thought  that  the  appointment 
would  be  less  objectionable,  if,  instead  of  being  per- 
manent, it  were  made  revocable  at  the  king’s  plea- 
sure ; and  if  it  were  confirmed  also  with  the  signatures 
of  almost  every  man  of  consequence  in  the  realm. 
The  first  of  these  expedients  might  be  easily  attained 
by  a change  in  the  form  of  the  instrument ; the  second 
was  accomplished  by  the  following  contrivance.2  At 

1 Paget  writes  to  Somerset  : “I  believe,  sir,  if  any  thing  chance 
u amiss,  that  not  only  your  grace  shall  give  the  account  which  ha^e 
“ authority  in  your  hands,  but  also  such  as  did  first  assent  and  acco' 

“ to  give  it  you.” — Strype,  Rec.  part  ii.  p.  111. 

a From  the  instrument  itself  it  appears  that  it  was  subscribed  c 
the  24th  of  December.  The  omission  of  any  mention  of  the  sub- 
scription in  the  Journals,  shows  that  it  did  not  take  place  before  the 
prorogation.  I conclude  that  it  took  place  immediately  afterwards, 
because  all  the  lords  who,  according  to  the  Journals,  were  in  the 
house,  subscribed  the  commission  in  proper  order,  excepting  the 
bishop  of  Bath  and  the  lord  Powis,  who  may  be  supposed  to  have 
departed  immediately  after  the  prorogation.  Lord  Seymour  and  the 
bishop  of  St.  David’s  were  not  in  the  house  ; but  subscribed  the  in- 


LATIMER  RECALLED. 


261 


the  prorogation  of  parliament  on  December  24,  before  chap. 
the  members  had  departed,  an  extraordinary  meeting  a.d.  1547. 
was  called,  and  the  new  commission  was  read  before 
those  who  attended.  It  bore  already  the  sign  manual, 
and  was  now  subscribed  by  Ryche,  the  lord  chancellor, 
by  the  other  lords,  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  order  of  precedency  in  the 
house,  and  then  by  distinguished  commoners,  privy 
councillors,  judges,  and  most  of  the  civil  and  law 
officers  of  the  crown,  to  the  number  of  sixty-two 
individuals.  It  was  certainly  an  improvement  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  protectorship  had  been  originally 
conferred.  Then  the  appointment  was  announced  to 
a meeting  of  the  Lords,  who  were  supposed  to  approve, 
because  no  one  objected:  now  all  who  were  present 
testified  their  approbation  by  appending  their  signa- 
tures to  the  commission.  To  these  signatures  Somer- 
set frequently  appealed  in  his  subsequent  troubles.1 
The  session  closed  with  a general  pardon  from  the  Dec.  24. 
king,  in  consequence  of  which  Gardiner  obtained  his 
liberty.2 

The  result  of  this  meeting  of  parliament  cheered 
the  men  of  the  new  learning  with  the  most  flattering 

strument.  Probably  they  came  later,  for,  though  the  bishop  sub- 
scribes, it  is  not  in  his  proper  order,  but  in  a vacant  space. 

1 The  commission  itself  with  the  signatures  is  in  the  possession  of 
William  Staunton,  esquire,  of  Longbridge  House,  Warwick;  and 
has  been  published  with  valuable  remarks  by  Mr.  G-.  Nichols,  in 
Archseol.  xxx.  463. 

3 In  ^ne  of  his  letters,  written  during  the  session,  he  hints  that, 
if  any  man  thought  it  politic  to  keep  him  from  parliament,  such 
person  ought  to  consider  wdiether  his  forcible  absence,  with  that  of 
those  whom  he  had  been  used  to  name  in  the  nether  house,  might 
not  afterwards  be  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  validity  of  the  jjro- 
ceeding. — Foxe,  ii.  69.  I notice  this  passage,  because  it  proves  that 
■several  boroughs  at  that  period  were  so  dependent  on  the  lords  and 
bishops,  that  they  not  only  returned  the  members  named  by  such 
lords,  but  without  such  nomination  made  no  return  at  all. 


262 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 
IV.  * 
A.D.  1547. 


1548. 
Jan.  1. 


Peb.  24. 


March  13. 


anticipations ; but  the  archbishop,  aware  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  nation  was  still  attached  to  the 
ancient  faith,  deemed  it  prudent  to  moderate  their 
zeal,  and  pursued  his  course  with  caution  and  perse- 
verance. Latimer,  who  had  resigned  his  bishopric 
in  1539,  was  called  from  his  retirement,  and  appointed 
to  preach  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross.  The  character  of  the 
man,  the  boldness  of  his  invectives,  his  quaint  but 
animated  eloquence,  were  observed  to  make  a deep 
impression  on  the  minds  of  his  hearers ; and  a pulpit 
was  erected  for  him  in  the  king’s  privy  garden,  where 
the  young  Edward,  attended  by  his  court,  listened  to 
sermons  of  an  hour’s  duration,  and  admired  what  he 
could  not  understand,  the  controversial  superiority 
ofthe^preacher.1 

The  bishops  received  orders  to  abolish  in  their 
respective  dioceses  the  custom  of  bearing  candles  on 
Candlemas-day,  of  receiving  ashes  on  Ash  Wednesday, 
and  of  carrying  palms  on  Palm  Sunday.2  The  late 
king  had  frequently  commanded  the  removal  from  the 
churches  of  all  such  images  as  had  been  the  occasion 
of  superstition  and  abuse : a proclamation  now  ap- 
peared, which  complained  that  these  injunctions  had 
given  birth  to  dissensions  among  the  parishioners,, 
and  required  that,  to  restore  tranquillity,  all  images 
whatsoever  should  be  destroyed.3  To  this  succeeded 
an  order  for  the  public  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ment under  both  kinds  and  in  the  English  language. 
To  avoid  offence,  no  alteration  was  made  in  the  mass 
itself;  no  expression  liable  to  objection  was  introduced 
into  the  new  office ; but  at  the  end  of  the  canon,  an 

1 He  gave  to  Latimer  as  a reward  for  his  first  sermon  20 1.  The 
money  was  secretly  supplied  by  the  lord  admiral. 

2 Wilk.  iv.  22.  3 Ibid.  23. 


bishop  Gardiner’s  sermon. 


263 


exhortation  was  ordered  to  he  made  to  the  com-  chap. 
municants,  a prayer  followed,  and  the  eucharist  was  a.d.  1548. 
distributed  first  to  the  clergy,  and  then  to  the  laity. 

But  to  appease  the  impatience  of  the  reformers,  the 
young  king  was  made  to  say  in  the  preface:  “We 
“would  not  have  our  subjects  so  much  to  mistake  our 
“judgment,  so  much  to  mistrust  our  zeal,  as  if  we 
“ either  could  not  discern  what  were  to  be  done,  or 
“would  not  do  all  things  in  good  time.  God  be 
“ praised ! we  know  both  what  by  his  word  is  meet 
“ to  be  redressed,  and  have  an  earnest  mind,  by  the 
“advice  of  our  most  dear  uncle,  and  others  of  our 
“privy  council,  with  all  diligence  to  set  forth  the 
“ same.”1  The  reader  should  recollect  that  this 
learned  and  zealous  theologian  was  ten  years  old. 

It  was  soon  discovered  that  imprisonment  had  not 
broken  the  spirit  of  Gardiner.  He  was  again  sum- 
moned before  the  council,  and  the  next  day,  in  proof 
of  his  submission,  was  ordered  to  preach  at  St.  Paul’s 
Cross,  in  the  presence  of  the  king,  on  the  feast  of 
St.  Peter.  To  the  different  subjects  which  were  pre- 
scribed to  him  he  made  no  objection  ; but  he  refused 
to  deliver  a written  discourse  which  was  offered,  or 
to  submit  his  own  composition  to  the  correction  of 
the  council.  He  added  that,  as  this  was  perhaps  the 
only  opportunity  which  the  king  would  have  of  hearing 
the  truth,  he  was  determined,  whatever  might  be  the 
consequence,  to  explain  to  his  young  sovereign  the 
Catholic  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  mass  and  the 
eucharist.  The  sermon  was  preached,  and  the  next  June  29. 
day  the  bishop  was  committed  to  the  Tower.  His  June  30. 
discourse  might  be  divided  into  three  parts.  With 


1 Wilk.  iv.  11 — 13. 


264 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IY. 

A.D.  1548. 


the  first,  which  commended  the  religious  innovations 
of  the  last  and  the  present  reign,  even  his  enemies 
were  satisfied  ; of  the  second,  in  which  he  maintained 
that  a rightful  king  was  as  much  a sovereign  in  his 
infancy  as  at  a more  mature  age,  they  could  not 
complain ; though  it  disappointed  the  hopes  of  the 
protector,  who  wished  him  to  contradict  a very  pre- 
vailing notion,  that  the  authority  of  the  council  during 
the  minority  did  not  extend  to  the  issuing  of  new 
injunctions,  but  was  confined  to  the  execution  of 
the  existing  laws.  It  was  the  third  part  which  fur- 
nished the  pretext  for  his  commitment,  under  the 
charge  of  disobedience.  In  it  he  had  treated  of  the 
mass  and  the  eucharist,  though  the  protector  had  for- 
bidden him  in  writing  to  touch  on  any  controverted 
matter  respecting  these  questions.  In  his  own  justi- 
fication he  alleged,  that  he  had  not  been  guilty  of 
disobedience,  because  the  letter  was  a private  com- 
munication and  not  an  order  from  the  king  in  council, 
and  because  he  had  entered  into  no  controversy,  but 
had  confined  himself  to  the  explication  of  the  esta- 
blished doctrine  of  the  English  church,  in  language 
similar  to  that  employed  by  the  archbishop  in  the  dis- 
putation with  Lambert.1  His  imprisonment  was  evi- 
dently illegal;  but  his  absence  from  parliament  was 
not  less  desirable  in  the  present  than  it  had  been  in 
the  past  year.  His  constancy,  however,  encouraged 
the  partisans  of  the  ancient  faith ; and  in  a short  time 
several  other  prelates  ventured  to  express  their  dis- 
approbation of  the  attempts  of  the  metropolitan. 

Cranmer  had  lately  published  a catechism  “ for  the 

1 The  protector’s  letter  is  in  Wilkins,  iv.  28.  The  other  parti- 
culars are  extracted  from  the  articles  against  Gardiner,  and  his 
answers  in  Foxe,  ii.  75 — 77. 


BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 


2G5 


“ singular  profit  and  instruction  of  children  and  young 
“ people  -”1  and  was  now  employed  with  a committee 
of  bishops  and  divines  in  the  composition  of  a more 
important  work,  a liturgy  in  the  English  language, 
for  the  use  of  the  English  church ; the  adoption  of 
which  by  authority  of  parliament  would,  it  was  hoped, 
consummate  the  separation  of  the  kingdom  from  the 
communion  of  Rome,  by  destroying  the  similarity 
which  still  remained  in  the  mode  of  religious  worship 
sanctioned  by  the  two  churches.  Taking  the  Latin 
missals  and  breviaries  for  the  groundwork,  they 
omitted  such  parts  as  they  deemed  superfluous  or 
superstitious,  translated  others,  and  by  numerous  addi- 
tions and  corrections  endeavoured  to  meet  the  wishes 
of  the  new  teachers,  without  shocking  the  belief  or 
the  prejudices  of  their  opponents.  Before  Christmas 
they  had  compiled  a book  of  common  prayer  and 
administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and 
ceremonies,  after  the  use  of  the  church  of  England.2 


It  is  remarkable,  that  in  this  catechism  the  archbishop  leans 
moile  than  usually  to  the  ancient  doctrines.  He  comprises  the  pro- 
hibition of  false  gods  and  of  images  under  one  commandment; 
teaches  that  in  the  communion  are  received  with  the  bodily  mouth 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ; inculcates  in  strong  terms  the  advan- 
tages of  confession  and  absolution,  and  attributes  the  origin  of 
ecc  esiastical  jurisdiction  to  Christ  in  a manner  which  seems  to  do 
away  his  former  opinion  on  the  same  subject.-— Burnet,  ii.  71. 
Col  ier,  ii.  251. 

The  principal  differences  between  this  and  the  present  book  of 
coniimon  prayer  are  to  be  found  in  the  prayer  of  consecration  (it 
onjtained,  in  imitation  of  all  the  ancient  liturgies,  these  words  : 
eare  us,  we  beseeche  thee,  and  with  thy  holy  spirite  and  worde 
uchsafe  to  bl  + esse  and  sancti  + fie  these  thy  gifts  and  creatures 
bread  and  wyne,  that  they  maye  be  unto  us  the  bodie  and 
lood  of  thy  most  derely  beloved  sonne”),  the  unctions  in  baptism 
confirmation,  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  matrimony,  the  anointing 
he  sick,  and  prayer  for  the  dead.  The  rubric  also  in  the  com- 
mon service  ordered,  that  the  bread  should  be  unleavened,  that 
communicant  should  receive  at  the  hand  of  the  priest  with  the 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1548 


f 


266 


EDWARD  VI. 


I 


CHAP.  To  the  premature  judgment  and  early  PietY  °f 

tv  , -i  i • QfFnrnftd  PT6&h 


CHAP.  10  tne  piemcttuiv  j— & - * “ tt  f 

king  He  completion  of  the  work  f 

— “ comfort  and  quietness  of  mind,  He  hastened  to 

J j^q.  y,  _ - . n i • _ 1?  JLl~  ^ 1 /vm/1  n rmrl  PHTYl TT1  OTIS 


••  CO  mi  on  ttiiu  — — 

recommend  it  to  the  notice  of  the  lords  and  commons 
assembled  in  parliament,  and  a bill  was  introduce 
to  abolish  all  other  forms  of  worship,  and  establish 
this  in  their  place.  The  preamble  states  that,  whereas 
numerous  dissensions  had  arisen  in  the  kingdom  from 
the  pertinacity  with  which  many  adhered  to  the  old, 
and  others  to  new,  forms  of  divine  worship,  the  king, 
abstaining  of  his  clemency  from  the  punishment  ot 
the  offenders,  had  appointed  certain  prelates  and 
learned  men  to  compose  one  convenient  and  meet 
order,  rite,  and  fashion  of  common  and  open  prayer , 
by  whom  that  important  task  had  been  accomplice 
by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  one  uniform 

” r*  l 1 J T-x  /-.ri  nACl  PTl  T1 P* 


DY  me  am  ui  j -it 

agreement:1  therefore  the  two  houses,  considering 


agreement . v 

the  godly  travail  of  the  king  and  council,  and  the 
godly  prayers,  orders,  rites,  and  ceremonies  of  the  Cid 
hook,  and  the  reasons  of  altering  those  things  whjic 
he  altered,  and  of  retaining  those  which  be  retained 
and  also  the  honour  of  God  and  the  great  quietiies 
likely  to  ensue  from  the  use  of  the  same  do  give  io 
his  highness  most  hearty  and  lowly  thanks  an  P«7 
that  it  may  he  enacted  that  after  the  feast  of  Pen 
cost  all  ministers  of  the  church  within  the  realm  of 
England  shall  be  hound  “ to  say  and  use  the  matn  , 
« even  song,  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  cc^ 


the'  This  is  an  extraordinary  assertion.  There  were  “8^®“  bpfj 
in  the  committee  which  composed  ^ber  "again] 

(SjournllshT1)'  «d  ?di3aPProve  in  the  h°USe  | 

they  had  approved  in  the  committee  . 


267 


MARRIAGE  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

“ monly  called  the  mass,  and  administration  of  each 
“ of  the  sacraments,  and  all  their  common  and  open 
“ prayer,  after  the  order  and  form  of  the  said  book/’ 
and  of  no  other;  and  that  if  any  parson,  vicar,  or 
spiritual  person,  shall  refuse  to  use  it,  or  shall  preach 
or  speak  in  derogation  of  it,  or  shall  officiate  with 
any  other  form,  he  shall  for  the  first  offence  forfeit 
a year’s  profit  of  one  of  his  preferments,  with  six 
months’  imprisonment;  for  the  second  lose  all  his 
preferments,  with  a whole  year’s  imprisonment ; and 
for  the  third  be  imprisoned  for  life ; and  if  any  one 
ridicule  the  same  form  of  worship,  or  menace  the 
minister  for  using  it,  or  prevail  on  him  to  use  any 
other,  he  shall  on  the  first  conviction  pay  a fine  of 
ten  pounds,  on  the  second  of  twenty,  and  on  the 
third  forfeit  all  his  goods  and  chattels,  and  be  impri- 
soned for  life.1  In  the  lower  house  the  bill  passed 
without  much  difficulty ; in  the  higher  it  experienced 
a warm  opposition  ; but  “ after  a notable  disputation 
“ respecting  the  sacrament,”2  it  was  carried  by  a 
majority  of  thirty-one  to  eleven.3 

To  this  important  innovation  in  the  manner  of 
public  worship,  succeeded  another  not  less  important 
in  the  condition  of  the  priesthood.  In  the  last  reign 
the  archbishop  had  contended  for  the  marriage  of 
the  clergy  with  a pertinacity  which  might  have  cost 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  37,  38.  A provision  was  added,  authorizing 
the  singing  of  psalms  “at  any  due  time/’  by  all  men,  whether  in 
the  church  or  in  private  houses. — Ibid. 

2 The  King’s  Journal,  6. 

8 Journals,  331.  The  non-contents  were  the  earl  of  Derby,  the 
bishops  of  London,  Durham,  Norwich,  Carlisle,  Hereford,  Worcester, 
Westminster,  and  Chichester,  and  the  lords  Dacres  and  Wyndsor. — 
Ibid.  The  earl  of  Derby,  who  supposed  that  another  temporal  peer  had 
joined  in  the  opposition,  boasted  that  “the  nay  of  them  four  would 
“ be  to  be  seen  as  long  as  the  parliament-house  stood.” — Strype,ii.  84. 


268 


EDWARD  VI. 


chat.  him  his  life  : in  the  present  he  was  assured  of  a safe 
a.d.  1548.  and  easy  victory.  The  path  had  already  been  opened 
1548  by  the  decision  of  the  late  convocation ; and  at  an 
I)ec-  3-  early  period  of  the  session  a bill  for  the  marriage  of 
Dec.  7.  priests  was  introduced  into  the  lower  house.  On 
the  third  reading  it  was  discovered  that,  though  it 
allowed  laymen  who  had  wives  to  take  orders,  it  did 
not  permit  clergymen,  who  had  received  orders,  to 
Dec.  10.  take  wives.  A new  hill  was  therefore  brought  in, 
Dec. 13-  and  passed  after  a long  and  stormy  discussion.  In 
the  Lords,  however,  for  reasons  now  unknown,  it  re- 
mained during  two  months  without  notice;  when  a 
Feb?  9.  totally  different  bill  was  substituted  in  its  place,  and 
on  a division  was  carried  by  a majority  of  thirty-nine 
Feb.  19.  twelve.1  To  this  bill  the  Commons  assented.  It 
states  that,  though  it  were  to  be  wished  that  the 
clergy  would  observe  perpetual  continency.,  as  more 
becoming  their  spiritual  character,  rendering  them 
better  able  to  attend  to  their  ministry,  and  freeing 
them  from  worldly  cares  and  embarrassments,  yet  so 
many  inconveniences  had  arisen  from  compulsive 
chastity,  that  it  was  deemed  better  to  allow  to  those, 
who  could  not  contain,  the  godly  use  of  marriage ; 
wherefore  it  enacts,  that  thenceforth  all  laws  made 
by  man  only,  and  prohibitory  of  the  marriages  of 
spiritual  persons,  shall  be  void  and  of  none  effect ; 
but  that  all  divorces  hitherto  made  (in  consequence 
of  the  statute  of  the  Six  Articles)  shall  remain  valid 
in  law.2 

Of  these  enactments  it  was  natural  that  men  should 

1 Journals  of  Com.  iv.  5.  Journals  of  Lords,  323,  339.  The 
lords  in  the  minority  were  the  bishops  of  London,  Durham,  Norwich, 
Carlisle,  Worcester,  Chichester,  Bristol,  and  Landaff,  and  the  lords 
Morley,  Dacres,  Wyndsor,  and  Wharton. — Ibid. 

2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  67. 


SEYMOUR  MARRIES  THE  QUEEN  DOWAGER.  269 


judge  according  to  the  bias  given  to  their  minds  by 
their  religious  notions  : but  there  was  another  pro- 
ceeding in  this  parliament,  which  appeared  to  shock 
the  feelings  of  the  whole  nation.  The  protector  had 
a younger  brother,  Sir  Thomas  Seymour,  whose  ambi- 
tion was  equal,  whose  abilities  were  superior,  to  his 
own.  Between  them  a broad  distinction  had  been 
drawn  by  the  discernment  or  partiality  of  the  late 
king;  and  while  Edward  had  risen  to  the  rank  of 
earl,  had  obtained  the  command  of  armies,  and  been 
named  one  of  the  governors  of  his  nephew,  Thomas 
had  been  left  without  title,  and  without  any  other 
office  than  that  of  counsellor  to  Henry’s  executors. 
If  the  latter  bore  with  impatience  the  superiority  of 
his  brother  during  the  last  reign,  his  discontent  was 
not  appeased  by  the  first  measures  of  the  present. 
He  had  indeed  obtained  a grant  of  the  manor  of 
Sudeley,  and  of  other  manors  in  eighteen  different 
counties;1  had  been  created  a baron  by  the  style  of 
Lord  Seymour  of  Sudeley,  and  had  been  appointed 
high  admiral  of  England  : but  to  his  ambition  these 
grants  and  preferments  appeared  as  nothing  compara- 
tively with  the  rank  and  titles  of  Edward,  who  was 
protector  of  the  realm,  guardian  of  the  royal  person, 
lord  high  treasurer,  earl  marshal,  and  duke  of  So- 
merset. The  first  step  towards  the  improvement  of 
his  fortune  was  his  marriage  with  the  queen  dowager. 
Whether  that  princess  be  entitled  to  all  the  praises 
which  have  been  lavished  on  her  by  her  panegyrists, 
may  fairly  be  doubted.  Certainly  she  displayed  no 
very  great  sense  of  decorum  in  the  precipitancy  with 
which,  after  the  death  of  Henry,  she  sought  a fourth 

1 Strype,  ii.  125.  Sudeley  had  belonged  to  the  abbey  of  Win- 
ch elcom  be. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549 


270 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.  I).  1549. 


husband,  almost  before  the  dead  body  of  the  third 
was  deposited  in  the  grave.  We  first  meet  with  her 
at  court,  probably  to  offer  her  congratulations  to  the 
new  king  on  his  accession.  There  she  spoke  in 
private  to  Lord  Seymour,  who  had  once  been  her 
wooer.  Her  words  did  not  transpire,  but  on  her  return 
home,  she  wrote  to  assure  him  that  they  did  not 
proceed  from  any  sudden  impulse  of  passion,  but 
from  that  affection  which  she  bore  to  him  formerly, 
and  which  was  still  unimpaired.1  We  next  find  her 
watching  for  his  arrival  at  the  postern-gate  of  her 
garden  at  Chelsea  in  the  dead  of  the  night,  and 
stealthily  introducing  him  into  her  house,  on  condition 
that  he  should  withdraw  by  seven  of  the  clock,  to 
avoid  detection.2  From  the  language  in  her  letters, 
it  seems  that  some  contract  of  espousal  soon  passed 
between  them ; but  that  contract  was  kept  a profound 
secret,  because,  according  to  ancient  precedents,  to 
marry  a queen  dowager  without  the  permission  of 
the  reigning  sovereign,  was  a misdemeanor  subjecting 
the  offender  to  fine  and  imprisonment.  Their  furtive 

1 Strype,  ii.  132. 

2 This  appears  from  the  following  passage  in  her  letter  to  him  : 
“ Whan  it  schal  be  your  pleasur  to  repayer  hether,  ye  must  take 
11  sum  payne  to  come  erly  in  the  mornyng,  that  ye  may  be  gone 
“ agayne  by  seven  a clocke ; and  so  I suppose  ye  may  come  without 
“ suspect.  I pray  you  lett  me  have  knowlege  ver  nyght  at  what 
11  hower  ye  wyll  come,  that  your  porteresse  may  wayte  at  the  gate 
lt  to  the  feldes  for  you. — By  her  that  ys  and  schalbe  your  humble 
u true  and  lovyng  wyffe  duryng  her  lyf.  Kateryn  the  Quene.  K.P.” 
— Ellis,  ii.  152.  This  letter  has  no  date,  but  if  it  mean,  as  it 
seems  to  mean,  that  till  seven  the  darkness  of  the  morning  would 
help  to  conceal  him,  it  cannot  have  been  written  later  than  the 
middle  of  February ; and  this  inference  derives  confirmation  from  the 
twentieth  article  of  the  charge  brought  against  Seymour  by  the 
council,  that  his  cohabitation  with  the  queen  “ was  so  soon,  that  if 
u she  had  conceived  straight  after,  it  should  have  been  a great  doubt 
u whether  the  child  born  should  have  been  accounted  the  late  king’s 
“ or  the  admiral’s.” — Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  160. 


SEYMOUR'S  POLICY  WITH  THE  KING.  271 


meetings,  however,  could  not  be  continued  with  safety ; c^p 
and  it  became  a matter  of  the  first  importance  to  a.d.  1549 
procure  the  royal  consent  to  their  marriage.1  The 
pride  of  Seymour  recoiled  from  asking  the  favour  from 
his  brother,  the  protector;  but  at  last  necessity  or 
opportunity  led  him  to  break  the  matter  to  Somerset, 
not  as  if  he  spoke  of  a marriage  already  contracted, 
but  of  one  to  which  he  aspired.  To  carry  on  the 
deception,  he  solicited  the  good  offices  of  the  young 
Edward,  and  of  the  lady  Mary,  that  they  would 
induce  the  queen  dowager  to  favour  his  suit.  From 
the  protector  and  the  council  he  received  a severe 
reprimand  for  his  presumption ; Mary,  with  a caustic 
remark,  refused  to  interfere;2  but  the  simplicity  of 
Edward  was  easily  deceived.  He  not  only  urged  his 
mother-in-law  to  marry  his  uncle,  but  later,  when  the 
council  had  consented  to  the  match,  thanked  her  for 
having,  at  his  prayer,  done  that  which  she  had,  in 
fact,  done  long  before  any  application  was  made  to 

1 It  was  certainly  concealed  till  the  end  of  May.  On  the  17th  of 
that  month  Seymour  writes  to  the  queen  from  St.  James's,  that  her 
sister  Anne,  wife  to  Sir  William  Herbert,  had  joked  with  him  about 
his  lodging  at  Chelsea.  He  denied  it : “ he  only  went  by  the  garden, 

“ as  he  went  to  see  the  bishop  of  London’s  house.”  But  11  she  told 

him  further  tokens  which  made  him  change  colour.”  He  reco- 
vered, however,  from  his  fright  when  he  found  that  she  had  not 
learned  it  from  others,  but  had  received  it  in  confidence  from  the  queen 
herself. — See  it  in  Tytler,  i.  60 ; and  Miss  Strickland’s  Queens, 
v.  100. 

2 Mary’s  reply  does  her  honour  : “ My  lorde,  in  this  case,  if  it 
u weer  for  my  nereste  kynsman  and  dereste  frend  on  lyve,  of  all 

11  other  creatures  in  the  worlde,  it  standest  leste  with  my  poore 
u honore  to  be  a medler  in  this  matter,  consyderyng  whose  wief  her 
“ Grace  was  of  late — Thynke  not  an  unkyndness  in  me,  thoughe  I 
11  refuse  to  be  a medler  any  way  es  in  this  matter,  assuring  you  that 
11  (wowyng  matters  set  aparte,  wherein  I,  being  a mayde,  am  nothyng 
41  connyng),  if  otherwayes  it  shall  lye  in  my  little  power  to  do  you 
il  pleser,  I shall  be  as  gladde  to  do  it,  as  you  to  requyre  it.” — 

Ellis,  ii.  150. 


272 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549 


him.1  With  the  person  of  Catherine,  Seymour  be- 
came master  of  her  wealth  and  her  dower;  hut  in 
one  thing,  which  he  coveted,  he  was  disappointed, — 
the  possession  of  the  jewels  presented  to  her  by  the 
late  king.  These  he  induced  her  to  claim  as  if  they 
had  been  a gift ; by  the  council  they  were  reclaimed 
as  only  a loan  made  to  her,  and  were  still  the  property 
of  the  crown.2 

The  next  object  of  the  admiral  was  to  win  and 
monopolize  the  affection  of  his  nephew.  With  this 
view  he  indulged  the  young  Edward  in  all  his  wishes; 
secretly  supplied  him  with  large  sums  of  money,3 
blamed  the  severity  with  which  he  was  used  by  the 
protector,  hinted  that  he  was  kept  under  restraint 
unbecoming  his  age  and  parts  and  dignity,  and  pur- 
chased with  presents  the  good-will  of  his  preceptors, 
and  of  the  gentlemen  of  his  chamber.  From  ancient 
precedents,  he  contended,  that  the  offices  of  protector 
and  guardian  ought  not  to  be  joined  in  the  same 
person ; but  that,  if  one  belonged  to  the  elder  uncle, 
the  other  ought  to  be  conferred  on  the  younger.  The 
king  readily  imbibed  the  opinions  of  the  man  whom 
he  loved ; and  a resolution  was  taken  that  the  nephew 
should  write  a letter  of  complaint ; that  the  admiral 
should  lay  it  before  the  two  houses  of  parliament ; 
and  that  he  should  attempt,  with  the  aid  of  his 
partisans,  to  procure  the  guardianship  for  himself 
Seymour  had  already  composed  the  letter  for  Edward, 
who  engaged  to  copy  it,  when  the  plot  was  betrayed 
to  the  protector,  and  the  lord  admiral  was  called 

1 In  Strype,  ii.  133.  See  also  Seymour’s  attainder,  Stat.  of 
Realm,  iv.  63. 

2 Haynes,  73. 

See  Edward’s  Confession,  ibid.  74;  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  163. 


HIS  INTRIGUE  WITH  ELIZABETH. 


273 


before  the  council.1  He  repelled  the  charge  with  chap. 
haughtiness,  and  treated  their  authority  with  defiance,  a.d.  1549. 
But  when  the  law  officers  declared  that  his  offence 
amounted  to  an  attempt  to  overturn  the  established 
government,  and  a hint  had  been  thrown  out  of  com- 
mitting him  to  the  Tower,  his  courage  quickly  subsided: 
he  condescended  to  acknowledge  his  fault ; and  the 
two  brothers  mutually  forgave  each  other.  To  seal 
their  reconciliation,  an  addition  of  eight  hundred 
pounds  a year  was  made  to  his  appointments. 

But  a new  prospect  soon  opened  to  his  ambition, 
which,  as  it  sought  for  power,  was  not  to  be  satisfied 
with  money.  He  began  to  aspire  to  the  hand  of  the 
lady  Elizabeth,  the  king’s  sister,  and  to  condemn  that 
precipitate  union  with  Catherine  which  excluded  him 
from  the  pursuit  of  so  noble  a prize.  His  attentions 
to  the  princess  were  remarked ; and  their  familiarity 
was  so  undisguised,  that  it  afforded  employment  to  the 
propagators  of  scandal,  and  awakened  the  jealousy  of 
his  wife,  by  whom  he  was  one  day  surprised  with  ^ 
Elizabeth  in  his  arms.2  But  the  queen  in  a short  time  Se^-  s°- 
died  in  childbirth ; and  her  death  happened  so  oppor- 
tunely for  his  project,  that  by  the  malice  of  his 
enemies  it  was  attributed  to  poison.3  He  now  re- 
doubled his  court  to  the  princess  ;4  her  governess  was 

1 Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  158.  Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  62. 

1 Haynes,  96,  99. 

3 Ibid.  103,  104.  Even  Elizabeth  notices  that  “she,  he  had 

“ before,  ded  so  myskary.” — Ibid.  101.  “ He  holpe  her  to  her 

“ end.” — Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  63. 

4 From  the  testimony  of  the  reluctant  Mrs.  Ashley,  Elizabeth’s 
governess,  it  appears  that  the  courtship  was  not  conducted  in  the 
most  delicate  manner.  The  moment  he  was  up,  he  would  hasten  to 
Elizabeth’s  chamber  “ in  his  night  gown,  and  barelegged 5”  if  she 
were  still  in  bed,  u he  wold  put  open  the  curteyns  and  make  as 
“ though  he  wold  come  at  hir  “ and  she  wold  go  farther  in  the 
“ bed,  so  that  he  cold  not  come  at  hir  ” if  she  were  up,  he  “ wold 

VOL.  V.  T 


274 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1548. 


bribed;  her  own  affections  were  won;  but  a clandestine 
marriage  would,  by  the  will  of  her  father,  have  an- 
nulled her  right  to  the  succession ; and  means  were 
to  be  devised  to  extort  what  otherwise  would  not  be 
granted,  the  consent  of  the  council.1  For  this  pur- 
pose, as  it  was  believed,  the  admiral  sought  the  friend- 
ship of  the  discontented  among  the  nobility,  and  by 
condemning  the  measures  of  the  government,  endea- 
voured to  acquire  the  applause  of  the  people.  He 
censured  the  employment  of  foreign  troops  in  the  war 
against  Scotland,  as  an  innovation  dangerous  to  the 
liberties  of  the  country ; his  nephew  was  taught  to 
look  with  a jealous  eye  on  the  ambition  of  the  pro- 
tector; a marriage  was  secretly  projected  between  the 
young  king  and  the  lady  Jane  Grey,2  the  presumptive 

“ ax  how  she  did,  and  strike  hir  upon  the  bak  or  the  buttocks 
“ famylearly.” — Ibid.  98,  99.  He  sent  James  Seymour  “to  recom- 
“ mend  him  to  hir,  and  ax  hir,  whither  hir  great  buttocks  were  grown 
“ any  less  or  no.” — Ibid.  100.  Parry,  the  cofferer,  says,  “ she  told 
“ me  that  the  admirall  loved  her  but  two  well ; that  the  quene  was 
“ jelowse  on  hir  and  him ; and  that,  suspecting  the  often  accesse  of 
“ the  admiral  to  her,  she  came  sodenly  upon  them,  wher  they  were 
“ all  alone,  he  having  her  in  his  armes.” — Ibid.  96.  It  was  reported, 
not  only  that  she  was  pregnant,  which  she  declared  to  be  “ a shame- 
“ ful  schandler”  (ibid.  90);  but  also  that  she  bore  him  a child. 
“ There  was  a bruit  of  a childe  borne  and  miserably  destroyed,  but 
“ could  not  be  discovered  whose  it  was,  on  the  report  of  the  midwife, 
“ who  was  brought  from  her  house  blindfold  thither,  and  so  returned. 
“ Saw  nothing  in  the  house  while  she  was  ther  but  candlelight ; 
“ only  sayd  it  was  the  child  of  a very  fair  yong  ladie.”  MS.  life 
of  Jane  Dormer,  duchess  of  Feria,  p.  150.  Elizabeth  complained  of 
these  reports,  and  the  protector  at  last  issued  a proclamation  against 
them. — Ellis,  ii.  153,  157. 

1 Elizabeth  acknowledges  his  proposal  of  marriage  in  a letter  to 
the  protector  for  the  purpose  of  excusing  Mrs.  Ashley. — Ellis,  ii. 
154.  Both  Ashley  and  Parry  were  true  to  her  on  this  occasion: 
they  could  not  be  brought  to  admit  of  any  thing  criminal  in  her  con- 
duct. When  she  became  queen,  she  rewarded  them  by  making 
Parry  comptroller  of  the  household,  and  keeping  Ashley  as  a con- 
fidential servant  at  court  till  her  death. 

2 He  had  prevailed  on  the  marquess  and  the  marchioness  of  Dorset 
to  allow  the  young  lady  to  stay  with  the  queen  dowager  ; after  whose 


HE  IS  ATTAINTED  OF  TREASON. 


275 


heiress  to  the  claims  of  the  house  of  Suffolk  ; and  the  chap. 
riches  of  the  admiral,  the  number  of  his  retainers,  and  a.d.  1548. 
his  influence  in  different  counties,  were  openly  vaunted 
and  exaggerated  by  himself  and  his  friends. 

The  protector  at  length  determined  to  crush  so 
dangerous  a competitor.  Sherington,  master  of  the 
mint  at  Bristol,  was  examined  before  the  council,  on 
& charge  of  having  amassed  an  enormous  fortune,  by 
clipping  the  coin,  issuing  testoons  of  inferior  value,1 
and  falsifying  the  entries  made  in  his  books.  The 
admiral,  who  was  his  creditor  to  the  amount  of  three 
thousand  pounds,  boldly  defended  the  accused;  but 
Sherington,  to  save  his  life,  betrayed  his  advocate, 
and  confessed  that  he  had  promised  to  coin  money 
for  Seymour,  who  could  reckon  on  the  services  of  ten 
thousand  men,  and  intended  with  their  aid  to  carry 
off  the  king,  and  to  change  the  present  form  of  the 
government.2  On  this  confession  he  was  found  guilty,  Jan?9i6. 

death  he  again  prevailed  on  them  to  agree  that  their  daughter  should 
reside  with  him,  promising  to  bring  about  a marriage  between  her 
and  the  king. — Tyt.  i.  138. 

1 The  testoons  passed  for  twelve-pence,  but  were  not  intrinsically 
of  half  the  value.  A new  coinage  was  issued  of  sovereigns  and  half- 
sovereigns,  and  of  crowns  and  half-crowns,  of  the  value  of  twenty, 
ten,  five  shillings,  and  two  shillings  and  sixpence.  These  were  of 
gold  : the  silver  pieces  were  the  shilling  in  place  of  the  testoons,  and 
the  half-shilling. — Strype,  ii.  119,  120. 

2 I have  extracted  these  particulars  from  the  original  depositions 
in  the  Burghley  State  Papers,  the  Records  in  Burnet,  and  the  act  of 
attainder  of  Sherington.  Several  other  particulars,  mentioned  by 
historians,  I have  omitted,  because  they  are  not  supported  by  these 
documents.  Nor  have  I given  full  credit  to  the  documents  them- 
selves ; particularly  as  to  the  sum  of  money  promised  to  him  by 
Sherington,  and  the  number  of  men  at  his  disposal.  It  has  been 
said  that  the  quarrel  between  the  two  brothers  was  owing  originally 
to  a quarrel  between  their  wives ; but  this  again  has  been  disputed 
by  some  modern  historians,  as  depending  only  on  the  assertion  of 
Sanders.  It  is,  however,  also  mentioned  by  Foxe,  p.  96.  I am 
indeed  aware  that  the  authority  of  Foxe  is  not  one  jot  better  than 
that  of  Sanders;  but,  when  two  violent  writers  of  opposite  parties 

T 2 


276 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


Feb.  25. 


Feb.  27. 


and  attainted  of  high  treason ; the  admiral  was  com- 
mitted to  the  Tower,  and  underwent  several  examina- 
tions, sometimes  before  a deputation,  once  before  the 
whole  of  the  council.  On  these  trying  occasions  he 
lost  nothing  of  his  usual  spirit.  He  heard  the  charges 
against  him  with  disdain,  claimed  to  he  confronted 
with  his  accusers,  and  required  a copy  of  the  infor- 
mation. Such  demands,  though  consonant  to  the 
principles  of  justice,  were  contrary  to  the  practice 
of  the  age ; the  young  king  abandoned  one  uncle  to 
the  jealousy  or  vengeance  of  the  other,  and,  in 
imitation  of  the  illegal  precedents  of  the  last  reign, 
a bill  of  attainder  against  him  was  brought  into 
the  house  of  Lords.  The  judges  and  law  officers  of 
the  crown  gave  their  opinion,  that  some  of  the  charges 
amounted  to  treason ; and  several  peers,  rising  in 
their  places,  repeated  the  evidence  which  they  had 
already  given  before  the  council.  Somerset  was  pre- 
sent at  each  reading  of  the  bill.  On  the  third  it 
was  passed  without  a division,  and  was  sent  to  the 
other  house  with  a message  that  the  lords,  who  were 
personally  acquainted  with  the  traitorous  designs  of 
the  admiral,  would,  if  it  were  required,  repeat  their 
evidence  before  the  Commons.  In  that  house  an 
unexpected  opposition  was  made.  It  was  contended 
that  to  convict  by  bill  of  attainder  was  contrary  to 
law  and  justice ; that  by  the  late  statute  the  accused 
had  a right  to  be  confronted  with  his  accusers  ; and 
that  it  was  unreasonable  to  condemn  him  till  he 

agree  in  the  same  statement,  it  may  be  presumed  to  have  some  foun- 
dation in  truth.  The  king  himself  notices  in  his  Journal  (p.  4),  that 
“ the  lord  protector  was  much  offended  with  his  brother’s  marriage.” 
He  might  also  dread  the  influence  of  Seymour  over  the  mind  of  the 
young  Edward  ; for  Somerset  now  held  his  office  at  the  king’s  plea- 
sure, who  could  on  any  day,  at  the  admiral’s  persuasion,  remove 
him  from  it. 


AND  IS  EXECUTED. 


277 


had  been  heard  in  his  own  defence.  After  the  second 
reading,  the  Lords  repeated  their  message ; and,  having 
waited  for  a considerable  time,  requested  the  pro- 
tector to  receive  the  answer,  and  to  report  it  to  the 
house  the  next  day.  But  he  preferred  to  put  an  end 
to  the  discussion  in  the  Commons  by  a message  from 
the  king,  declaring  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  hear 
the  admiral  at  the  bar  of  the  house,  and  repeating 
the  offer  of  the  evidence  of  the  lords.  The  oppo- 
nents of  the  court  were  silenced ; the  bill  passed, 
and  received  the  royal  assent  at  the  end  of  the 
session.1 

Three  days  later  the  warrant  for  the  execution 
of  Seymour  was  signed  by  the  council,  and  among 
the  names  appear  those  of  Somerset  and  Cranmer, 
both  of  whom  might,  it  was  thought,  have  abstained 

1 Lords’  Journals,  345 — 347.  Journals  of  Commons,  8.  Stat.  ol 
Realm,  iv.  61.  It  has  been  alleged,  in  proof  of  the  protector’s 
brotherly  love  for  the  admiral,  “ that,  when  the  bill  for  the  attainder 
“ was  brought  in,  he  desired  for  natural  pity’s  sake  to  withdraw.” — 
Tyt.  i.  150.  Burnet,  iii.  205.  Undoubtedly  a sense  of  public 
decency  might  have  drawn  from  him  the  expression  of  some  such 
wish.  But  is  there  any  evidence  that  he  did  withdraw  ? All  the 
evidence  is  to  the  contrary.  From  the  Journals  it  is  certain  that  the 
bill  of  attainder  was  read  on  three  consecutive  days — the  25th,  26th, 
and  27th  of  February;  that  Somerset  was  present  in  his  place  on 
each  of  those  days,  and  that  on  the  27  th  it  was  passed  with  the 
assent  of  all  the  lords  (communi  omnium  procerum  assensu.) — Lords’ 
Journal,  i.  346.  Somerset  was  in  possession  of  the  royal  authority. 
He  might,  if  he  had  pleased,  have  prevented  the  introduction,  or 
arrested  the  progress  of  the  bill.  He  might  have  proceeded  accord- 
ing to  law,  and  not  by  attainder,  according  to  the  worst  precedents 
of  the  last  reign.  He  might  have  suffered  his  brother  to  make  his 
defence.  He  might  have  granted  to  him  a pardon,  or  have  commuted 
the  punishment.  Yet  his  brotherly  love  did  not  adopt  any  one  of  these 
expedients.  If  at  a later  period  he  complained  that  he  had  been 
made  to  believe  the  admiral’s  death  necessary  for  his  own  safety, 
and  lamented  that  they  had  not  personally  explained  matters  to  each 
other,  these  were  plainly  after-thoughts  in  extenuation  of  conduct 
which  he  could  not  justify,  and  equivalent  to  a,  confession  of  con- 
sciousness that  he  had  treated  his  brother  cruelly  and  unnaturally. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


March  1. 


March  4. 


March  14. 


March  17. 


278 


EDWARD  YI. 


chap,  from  that  ungracious  office,  the  one  on  account  of 
a.d.  1549.  his  relationship  to  the  prisoner,  the  other  because 
the  canons  prohibited  to  clergymen  all  participa- 
March  20.  tion  in  judgments  of  blood.1  On  the  scaffold  the 
unhappy  man  loudly  proclaimed  his  innocence ; nor 
will  those  who  attentively  peruse  the  thirty-three 
charges  against  him,  and  the  depositions  on  which 
they  were  founded,  be  inclined  to  dispute  his  asser- 
tion. His  enmity  was  not  against  the  king  but 
against  his  brother.  His  ambition  prompted  him  to 
seek  a share  of  that  power  which  Somerset  had  arro- 
gated to  himself;  his  influence,  his  intrigues,  his 
ascendancy  over  the  mind  of  his  nephew,  might  have 
been  dangerous  to  the  authority  of  the  protector ; 
but  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  he  intended 
to  carry  off  the  king,  or  to  raise  a civil  war  within 
the  kingdom.  It  was  thought  that,  if  his  offence  had 
been  more  clearly  established,  he  might  still  have 
obtained  pardon  from  the  charity  of  a brother ; and 
it  was  suspected  that  Sherington  had  been  suborned 
to  calumniate  him,  as  the  price  of  his  own  life;  a 
suspicion  which  was  almost  converted  into  certainty, 
Nov.  5.  when  that  offender  was  not  only  pardoned,  but 
restored  to  his  former  appointment,  and  found  still 
to  possess  a considerable  fortune.2  Latimer,  however, 
who  seems  to  have  believed  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
council,  undertook  their  defence.  In  a sermon 
preached  before  the  king  and  a numerous  audience, 
he  severely  condemned  the  temerity  of  those  who 

1 Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  164. 

2 In  1550  he  bought  back  of  the  king  the  manors  and  lands  which 
he  had  lorfeited,  for  the  sum  of  12,8 661.  2s.  2d.  He  had  been 
already  restored  in  blood,  and  had  obtained  his  former  office. — 
Strype,  ii.  199. 


HOSTILITIES  WITH  SCOTLAND. 


279 


presumed  to  judge  of  the  conduct  of  men  in  power,  chap. 
without  being  acquainted  with  their  motives;  and  a.d.  1549. 
justified  the  execution  of  Seymour,  whom  he  declared 
to  have  led  a sensual,  dissolute,  irreligious  life,  and 
to  have  died  in  a manner  suitable  to  his  life,  “ dan- 
“ gerously,  irksomely,  horribly;”  whilst  of  Sherington 
he  spoke  in  terms  of  approbation,  and  maintained 
that  the  fervency  of  his  repentance  entitled  him  to 
his  pardon,  and  made  him  a fit  example  for  the  en- 
couragement and  imitation  of  sinners. 1 This  tragedy 
has  left  a deep  stain  on  the  memory  both  of  Somer- 
set and  of  Latimer.  Somerset  sacrificed  a brother 
to  ward  off  the  danger  of  a rival;  Latimer  prosti- 
tuted his  holy  office  to  sanctify  a deed  of  cruelty  and 
injustice. 

We  may  now  return  to  the  Scottish  war.  The 
defeat  of  the  Scots  had  not  subdued  their  antipathy 
to  the  projected  marriage  between  Edward  and  Mary. 

To  an  unprejudiced  mind,  indeed,  that  marriage  must 
have  appeared  to  offer  numerous  and  valuable  benefits 
to  the  country ; but  in  the  opposite  scale  of  the 

1 Latimer  not  only  arraigned  the  life  of  the  admiral,  but  also  his 
death.  According  to  the  account  in  his  sermon,  as  Seymour  laid 
his  head  on  the  block,  he  told  the  servant  of  the  lieutenant,  to  bid 
his  servant  speed  the  thing  that  he  wot  of.  That  servant  was 
apprehended,  and  confessed  that  the  admiral  had  by  some  means 
procured  ink  in  the  Tower,  had  used  for  a pen  the  aiglet  of  a point 
which  he  plucked  from  his  hose,  and  had  written  two  letters  to  the 
lady  Mary  and  lady  Elizabeth,  which  he  sewed  within  the  sole  of  a 
velvet  shoe.  The  shoe  was  opened,  and  the  letters  were  found. 

Their  object  was  to  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  king’s  sisters  against 
the  protector  as  their  great  enemy.  Hence  the  preacher,  in  full 
belief  of  this  incredible  story,  concluded  that  God  had  clean  forsaken 
him.  “ Whether,”  he  adds,  “ he  be  saved  or  no,  I leave  it  to  God ; 

“ but  surely  he  was  a wicked  man,  and  the  realm  is  well  rid  of  him.” 

— See  Latimer’s  fourth  sermon  in  the  1st  edit.  Later  editors, 
ashamed  of  the  passage,  have  thought  proper  to  omit  it.  See  also 
Godwin,  93;  Strype,  i.  126. 


280 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  balance  were  to  be  weighed  the  hereditary  hatred 
a.d.  1549.  which  divided  the  two  nations ; the  idea  that  Scot- 
land  would  become  a province  of  that  kingdom  which 
had  so  often  but  so  vainly  laboured  to  subvert  its 
independence ; and  the  apprehension  that  the  loss  of 
the  national  independence  would  be  followed  by  the 
loss  of  the  national  religion.  Even  among  those  who 
were  not  moved  by  these  considerations,  there  were 
many  who,  with  the  earl  of  Huntley,  condemned  “ the 
“ manner  of  the  wooing.”  To  seek  the  friendship  of 
a nation  by  declaring  war  against  it,  to  claim  the 
affection  of  a woman  by  inflicting  injuries  on  her 
friends  and  her  possessions,  were  novel  and  doubtful 
experiments ; and  the  protector  soon  learned  that  his 
brilliant  victory  at  Pinkey  had  only  accelerated  the 
evil  which  it  was  his  great  object  to  avert.  In  an 
Peb488.  assembly  of  the  Scottish  lords  at  Stirling,  it  was 
resolved  to  implore  the  aid  of  France,  their  most 
ancient  and  faithful  ally,  to  offer  the  young  queen 
in  marriage  to  the  dauphin,  and  to  propose  that  for 
greater  security  she  should  be  educated  in  the  French 
Feb.  5.  court.  On  the  other  hand,  Somerset  had  published 
an  address  to  the  Scottish  people  in  English  and 
Latin,  imputing  the  evils  of  the  war  to  Arran  and  his 
advisers,  who  the  last  year  had  suppressed  the  favour- 
able offers  of  the  English  government.  To  whom, 
he  asked,  would  they  marry  their  infant  sovereign? 
To  a foreign  prince  ? Their  country  would  become 
an  appendage  to  a foreign  crown.  To  a native  ? It 
would  perpetuate  the  quarrel  between  England  and 
Scotland.  For  eight  hundred  years  no  opportunity 
had  risen  like  the  present.  A young  king  and  a 
young  queen  might  unite  their  crowns ; Scotland 
would  preserve  her  laws  and  liberties ; and  the  two 


HOSTILITIES  WITH  SCOTLAND. 


281 


nations  would  live  in  peace  and  harmony  under  the  chap 
common  name  of  Britons.  a.d.  1548. 

But  it  was  chiefly  on  the  venality  of  the  Scottish 
nobles  that  the  protector  relied  for  success.  There 
were  not  many  among  them  whose  patriotism  was 
proof  against  the  gold  of  England.  They  secretly 
subscribed  the  articles  which  he  offered ; they  bound 
themselves  by  oath  to  the  service  of  King  Edward  ; 
they  delivered  hostages  as  security  for  the  faithful 
performance  of  their  obligations.1  Still,  when  the 
moment  came,  they  hesitated  to  commit  themselves ; 
and  when  the  lord  Wharton  and  the  earl  of  Lennox 
invaded  the  western  marches,  they  successively  turned  Eeb.  18. 
against  the  invaders,  and  drove  them  with  consi- 
derable loss  across  the  borders.  But  on  the  eastern 
coast  the  lord  Gray  de  Wilton,  at  the  head  of  a 
powerful  army,  spread  the  flames  of  war  to  the  gates 
of  the  capital : Dalkeith  was  reduced  to  ashes ; and 
Haddington  was  taken,  fortified,  and  garrisoned  with 
more  than  two  thousand  men,  partly  English  and 
partly  Italians.  Gray  had  scarcely  begun  his  retreat, 
when  a hostile  squadron  anchored  at  Leith,  having  June  16. 
on  board  three  thousand  German,  and  two  thousand 
French  veterans,  commanded  by  d’Esse,  a brave  and 
experienced  officer.2  Beinforced  by  Arran  and  eight 
thousand  Scots,  d’Esse  sat  down  before  Haddington. 
Batteries  were  raised,  a breach  was  made ; but  Sir 
John  Wilford,  the  governor,  defended  himself  with 
so  much  skill  and  obstinacy,  and  inflicted  so  many 
injuries  on  the  assailants,  that  the  Frenchman,  doubt- 

1 See  proofs  in  Mr.  Tytler’s  Hist.  vi.  421 ; and  Chron.  Catal.  296. 

2 Henry  II.  used  to  say  of  him  : Nous  sommes  quatre  gentils- 
hommes,  qui  combattrons  en  lice,  et  courrons  la  bague  contre  tous 
allans  et  venans  de  la  France  ; moy,  Sansac,  d’Esse,  et  Chas- 
taigneraye. — Brantome,  vii.  203.  La  Haye,  1740. 


282 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  ful  of  the  result,  which  might  have  proved  fatal  to 
a.d.  1548.  his  followers,  refused  to  order  an  assault,  and  con- 
verted  the  siege  into  a blockade.1 
July  7.  About  the  same  time  the  earl  of  Arran  had  con- 
vened the  three  estates  of  the  kingdom  in  the  abbey 
of  Haddington.  The  determination  of  the  lords  at 
Stirling  was  solemnly  ratified  ; treaties  confirmatory 
of  the  marriage  and  alliance  were  exchanged  between 
d’Oyselles,  the  French  ambassador,  and  the  Scottish 
governor ; and  de  Breze  and  Yillegaignon,  sailing 
with  four  galleys  in  a southern  direction,  unexpectedly 
changed  their  course,  steered  round  the  north  of 
August  7.  Scotland  to  Dumbarton,  received  on  board  the  young 
queen  and  her  household,  and  reached  in  safety  the 
August  13.  harbour  of  Brest.  From  Brest  that  princess,  being 
in  her  sixth  year,  was  conducted  to  St.  Germain  en 
Laye,  and  contracted  to  her  destined  husband,  the 
dauphin  of  France.  From  this  moment  the  original 
object  of  the  war,  the  acquisition  of  Mary,  to  make 
her  the  wife  of  the  English  prince,  was  at  an  end. 
The  French  monarch,  as  the  representative  of  his 
son  and  daughter,  now  king  and  queen  of  Scotland, 
required  that  the  English  government  should  abstain 
from  all  hostility  against  the  Scots  during  the  minority 
of  the  two  princes.2  Somerset  returned  a refusal ; 
and,  from  the  purport  of  his  secret  negotiations  with 
the  earl  of  Argyle  and  the  lord  Gray,  appears  to  have 
still  cherished  the  project  of  expelling  the  French 
auxiliaries,  and  establishing  the  English  authority  in 
Scotland.3 

The  distress  of  the  garrison  at  Haddington  had  been 

1 Leslie,  467.  Hayward,  290. 

2 Leslie, '470.  Ribier,  ii.  152. 

3 See  Fisher’s  instructions  in  Chron.  Catal.  305.  He  gave  a 
pension  of  2,000  crowns  to  Argyle,  and  of  1,000  to  Gray. 


DEPRECIATION  OF  THE  CURRENCY. 


283 


occasionally  but  scantily  relieved  by  small  parties  from 
Berwick  ; and  an  attempt  was  made  to  throw  a more 
copious  supply  into  the  town  by  Sir  Thomas  Palmer 
and  Sir  Robert  Bowes,  at  the  head  of  two  thousand 
horse.  By  the  address  of  the  Lord  Home  the  convoy 
was  surprised,  and  the  escort  taken  or  slain.  To 
repair  this  disaster  the  earl  of  Shrewsbury  crossed  the 
borders  with  twenty-two  thousand  men,  of  whom 
three  or  four  thousand  were  German  lansquenets. 
But  d’Esse,  raising  the  blockade,  intrenched  himself 
at  Musselburg;  the  earl  could  not  provoke  him  to 
a battle,  and  dared  not  attack  him  within  his  fortifica- 
tions ; and  the  army  returned,  after  having  supplied 
the  garrison  with  men  and  provisions,  burnt  Dunbar, 
and  ravaged  the  country.1 

From  this  period  the  war  continued  with  alternate 
losses  and  advantages  to  both  parties ; though,  on  the 
whole,  the  balance  of  success  inclined  in  favour  of 
Scotland.  Haddington  was  evacuated.  The  allies 
recovered  the  fortresses  of  Home-castle  and  Fast- 
castle  ; they  crossed  the  borders,  burnt  Ford  and 
twenty  villages,  and  penetrated  almost  to  the  walls 
of  Newcastle  ; they  even  obtained,  after  an  obstinate 
and  bloody  action,  possession  of  the  rock  of  Inch- 
keith,  on  which  Cotterel  had  strongly  intrenched 
himself. 

D’Esse  was  recalled  at  his  own  solicitation  or  that 
of  the  Scots,2  and  left  the  command  to  Marshal  de 
Termes,  who  had  lately  brought  a reinforcement  of 
thirteen  hundred  men.  De  Termes  imitated  the 


1 Edward’s  Journal,  5,  6.  Holinsh.  994. 

* The  English  writers  say  the  Scots  were  wearied  with  his  vanity 
and  insolence  ; Brantome,  that  he  demanded  his  recall  on  account 
of  his  health. — Brant,  vii.  211. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1548. 


August  20. 


1549- 


June. 


284 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


policy  of  his  predecessor ; and  the  English  ascendancy 
gradually  yielded,  not  so  much  to  the  power  of  its 
adversaries,  as  to  the  influence  of  a series  of  untoward 
events,  which  distracted  the  attention  and  exhausted 
the  resources  of  the  government. 

The  depreciation  of  the  currency  during  the  late 
reign  had  been  followed  by  its  necessary  consequence, 
a proportionate  advance  in  the  price  of  saleable 
commodities.  The  value  of  land  rose  with  the  value 
of  its  produce ; and  the  rents  of  farms  had  been 
doubled,  in  many  instances  tripled,  in  the  course  of 
a few  years.  To  the  working  classes  this  alteration 
would  have  made  little  difference,  had  their  wages 
been  raised  in  the  same  ratio.  But  it  so  happened 
that  the  demand  for  labour  had  been  lessened ; and 
the  price  of  labour  sunk  with  the  demand.  Experi- 
ence had  proved  to  the  agriculturist  that  the  growth 
of  wool  was  more  profitable  than  that  of  corn  ; whence 
tillage  was  discouraged,  that  a larger  portion  of  land 
might  be  brought  into  pasturage ; and  in  most  counties 
thousands  of  labourers  were  excluded  from  their  accus- 
tomed employments.  But  if  scarcity  of  work  gene- 
rated distress,  that  distress  was  augmented  by  the 
interested  though  obvious  policy  of  the  landlords. 
In  former  times,  particularly  on  the  estates  of  the 
monks  and  clergy,  considerable  portions  of  land  had 
been  allotted  for  the  common  use  of  the  labourers  and 
of  the  poor  inhabitants.  But  the  present  proprietors 
had,  by  repeated  inclosures,  added  many  portions  of 
the  wastes  and  commons  to  the  former  extent  of  their 
farms,  and  thus  had  cut  off  or  narrowed  one  great 
source  of  support  to  the  more  indigent  classes  ; 1 and 

1 In  a proclamation  issued  the  preceding  year,  the  king  is  made 
to  complain  that  many  villages,  in  which  one  hundred  or  two  hun- 


INSURRECTIONS. 


285 


in  addition  frequently  let  tlieir  lands  at  an  advanced 
rent  to  “ leasemongers  ” or  middle-men,  who  on  their 
part  oppressed  the  farmer  and  cottager,  that  they 
might  indemnify  and  benefit  themselves.1 

Men,  under  the  pressure  of  distress,  are  always 
prepared  to  arraign  the  conduct  of  their  governors. 
The  discontented,  though  unable  to  comprehend  the 
arguments  of  controversialists,  felt  their  own  misery ; 
they  saw  that  the  new  proprietors  of  the  church  lands 
paid  not  the  same  attention  as  the  old  to  the  wants  of 
the  poor;  they  coupled  their  own  sufferings  with  the 
innovations  in  religion ; and  complained  of  that  system 
which  had  diminished  their  resources,  and  now  com- 
pelled them  to  practise  a worship  foreign  from  their 
habits  and  feelings.2  The  day  approached  when  the 
use  of  the  old  liturgy  was  to  cease,  and  that  of  the 
new  to  begin ; instead  of  the  high  mass,  its  music  and 
its  ceremonies,  with  which  they  had  been  familiarized 
from  their  infancy,  they  were  to  hear  what  they 
deemed  an  inanimate  service,  a “ mere  Christmas 
“ play  ;”3  and,  as  if  this  additional  provocation  had 
goaded  them  to  madness,  the  common  people  rose, 
almost  at  the  same  time,  in  the  counties  of  Wilts, 
Sussex,  Surrey,  Hants,  Berks,  Kent,  Gloucester,  Somer- 

dred  people  had  lived,  were  entirely  destroyed ; that  one  shepherd 
now  dwelt  where  industrious  families  dwelt  before ; and  that  the 
realm  is  wasted  by  “ bringing  arable  grounds  into  pasture,  and 
“ letting  houses,  whole  families,  and  copyholds  to  fall  down,  decay, 
“ and  be  waste.”  And  Hales,  the  commissioner,  in  his  charge 
repeats  these  complaints,  observing,  that  the  laws  which  forbade  any 
man  to  keep  more  than  2,000  sheep,  and  commanded  the  owners  of 
church  lands  to  keep  household  on  the  same,  and  to  occupy  as  much 
of  the  demesne  lands  in  tillage  as  had  been  occupied  twenty  years 
before,  were  disobeyed  ; whence  he  asserts,  that  the  number  of  the 
king’s  subjects  had  been  wonderfully  diminished  ; as  appeared  by 
the  new  books  of  musters  compared  with  the  old,  and  with  the 
Chronicles. — Strype,  ii.  92,  94. 

1 Strype,  ii.  141.  3 Godwin,  93.  8 Foxe,  ii.  15. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


286 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


set,  Suffolk,  Warwick,  Essex,  Hertford,  Leicester,  Wor- 
cester, and  Rutland.  In  tlie  first  of  these  counties. 
Sir  William  Herbert  put  himself  at  the  head  of  a 
body  of  troops,  dispersed  the  insurgents,  aud  executed 
martial  law  on  the  most  guilty.  In  the  others  tran- 
quillity was  restored  by  the  exertions  of  the  resident 
gentry,  and  the  persuasions  of  the  most  moderate 
among  the  yeomanry.1  It  proved,  however,  a deceitful 
calm,  the  forerunner  of  a more  dangerous  storm. 
The  protector  had  been  alarmed.  Without  the  con- 
currence of  the  council,  he  appointed  commissioners  to 
inquire  into  the  grievances  of  the  people,  to  remove 
the  new  enclosures,  and  to  restore  the  ancient  com- 
mons. The  very  intelligence  revived  the  hopes  of 
the  discontented ; they  assembled  again  in  numerous 
bodies,  and  proceeded  to  do  themselves  justice  without 
the  aid  of  the  commissioners.  In  general,  however, 
as  they  acted  without  concert  and  without  leaders, 
the  effervescence  subsided  of  itself ; but  in  the  coun- 
ties of  Oxford,  of  Norfolk,  and  of  Cornwall  and  Devon, 
the  risings  assumed  a more  dangerous  shape ; armies 
were  formed  which  threatened  defiance  to  the  govern- 
ment ; and,  if  the  insurrections  were  finally  suppressed, 
it  was  only  with  the  aid  of  the  foreign  troops,  the 
bands  of  adventurers  that  had  been  raised  in  Italy, 
Spain,  and  Germany,  to  serve  in  the  war  against 
Scotland. 

The  command  in  Oxfordshire  and  Buckinghamshire 
was  given  to  the  lord  Grey,  with  a body  of  fifteen 
hundred  regular  troops,  including  Spinola  with  his 
Italians.  As  soon  as  he  had  been  joined  by  the 
gentlemen  of  the  county,  he  marched  against  the 
insurgents,  of  whom  one  part  fled  at  his  approach, 
1 Edward’s  Journal,  6. 


DEMANDS  OF  THE  INSURGENTS. 


287 


the  other  was  broken  at  the  first  charge.  Two  hun-  ohap 
dred  were  made  prisoners  in  the  pursuit,  and  twelve  a.d.  1549. 
of  the  ringleaders  were  delivered  to  the  general, 
by  whose  order  they  expiated  their  offence  on  the 
gallows.1 

In  Devonshire  the  new  liturgy  had  been  read  for 
the  first  time  in  the  church  of  Samford  Courtenay  on 
Whit  Sunday;  the  next  day  the  parishioners  compelled  June  IO- 
the  clergyman  to  resume  the  ancient  service.  This 
contravention  of  the  law  was  the  signal  of  a general 
insurrection.  Humphrey  Arundel,  the  governor  of 
St.  Michael’s  Mount,  put  himself  at  its  head,  and  in  a 
few  days  numbered  under  his  standard  ten  thousand 
men. 

To  oppose  the  insurgents  the  lord  Russell,  lord 
privy  seal,  was  furnished  with  a small  body  of  troops, 
and  with  three  preachers,  Gregory,  Reynolds,  and 
Coverdale,  who  received  a license  from  the  king 
to  declare  the  word  of  God  to  the  people  in  such 
public  places  as  the  general  should  appoint.2  But 
Russell,  distrusting  the  inferiority  of  his  force,  and  the  June  23. 
eloquence  of  his  preachers,  resolved  to  imitate  the 
policy  of  the  duke  of  Norfolk  in  the  late  reign.  He 
offered  to  negotiate ; and  the  insurgents  made  fifteen 
demands,  which  were  afterwards  reduced  to  eight, 
requiring  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  service,  the 
re-enactment  of  the  statute  of  the  Six  Articles,  the 
introduction,  of  Cardinal  Pole  into  the  council,3  and 
the  re-establishment  of  two  abbeys  at  least  in  every 

1 Ibid.  7. 

2 See  the  commission  in  Strype,  ii.  168.  Parker,  afterwards  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  was  another  preacher  for  the  same  purpose. 

He  harangued  the  Norfolk  insurgents,  and  narrowly  escaped  with 
his  life. 

3 Evidently  on  account  of  the  high  rank  and  extensive  influence 
which  his  family  had  possessed  in  the  county. 


288 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 
July  8. 


July  11.4 


July  16. 


county.  To  the  first  Cranmer  composed  a long  and 
elaborate  reply ; the  second  was  answered  by  a pro- 
clamation in  the  king’s  name,  refusing  every  article  in 
a tone  of  contempt  and  superiority.1  But  Arundel, 
while  he  treated,  continued  his  operations,  and  sat 
down  before  Exeter.  Without  cannon  to  make  a 
breach,  he  instructed  his  followers  to  set  fire  to  one  of 
the  gates ; hut  the  inhabitants  threw  additional  fuel 
into  the  flames,  and,  while  it  burnt,  erected  a new 
rampart  within.  A second  attempt  to  sap  the  wall 
was  defeated  by  the  vigilance  of  the  besieged,  who 
discovered  the  mine,  and  filled  it  with  water.  The 
assailants,  however,  were  not  dismayed ; by  watching 
the  gates  they  prevented  the  introduction  of  provi- 
sions ; and  during  a fortnight  the  inhabitants  suffered 
all  the  privations  of  famine. 

In  the  meantime  the  council,  instead  of  supplying 
Bussell  with  troops,  had  sent  him  nothing  but  pro- 
clamations. By  one  a free  pardon  was  granted  to  all 
who  would  submit ; by  a second,  the  lands,  goods,  and 
chattels  of  the  insurgents  were  given  to  any  man  who 
could  obtain  possession ; a third  ordered  the  punish- 
ment of  death  to  be  inflicted  by  martial  law  on  such 
persons  as  attempted  to  collect  any  riotous  or  unlaw- 
ful assembly ; and  a fourth  urged  the  commissioners 
to  put  down  illegal  inclosures,  and  was  accompanied 
with  a private  admonition  that  it  was  time  for  them 
to  look  to  themselves,  and  to  reform  their  own  con- 

1 The  king’s  proclamation  may  be  seen  in  Foxe  (ii.  15,  16)  ; the 
reply  of  the  archbishop  has  been  published  by  Strype  (Life  of 
Cranmer,  App.  p.  86).  In  the  eighth  article  the  Cornish  men  “ re- 
“ fused  the  English  service,  because  certain  of  them  understood  no 
“ English.”  The  archbishop  replied,  that  neither  did  they  under- 
stand Latin : an  evasive  answer,  for  in  his  remarks  on  their  third 
request,  he  had  assigned  their  ignorance  of  the  Latin  tongue  as  a 
reason  why  they  should  not  have  the  mass  in  Latin. 


RISING  IN  NORFOLK. 


289 


duct.  At  length,  on  the  fortieth  day,  Lord  Grey  chap. 
arrived  with  a reinforcement  of  German  horse  and  a.d.  1549- 
Italian  arquebusiers ; the  insurgents  were  immediately  Au~t  6 
driven  from  the  city  wuth  the  loss  of  nine  hundred 
men ; an  attempt  to  rally  on  Clifton  Down  was  fol- 
lowed by  a more  sanguinary  defeat ; and  a third  and 
last  effort  to  oppose  the  royal  forces  at  Bridgewater 
completed  their  downfal.  During  the  insurrection 
four  thousand  men  are  said  to  have  perished  in  the 
field  or  by  the  hand  of  the  executioner.1 

In  Norfolk  the  first  rising  was  at  Aldborough.  It  June  10. 
appeared  in  its  origin  too  contemptible  to  deserve 
notice;  hut  it  formed  the  nucleus  round  which  the 
discontented  of  the  neighbouring  parishes  successively 
arranged  themselves ; and  as  soon  as  they  amounted 
to  a formidable  number,  Ket,  by  trade  a tanner,  but 
the  lord  of  three  manors  in  the  county,  proclaimed 
himself  their  leader.  He  planted  his  standard  on  the  July  6. 
summit  of  Moushold  Hill,  near  Norwich,  erected  for 
himself  a throne  under  a spreading  oak,  which  he 
called  the  Oak  of  Reformation,  and  established  courts 
of  Chancery,  King’s  Bench,  and  Common  Pleas,  in 
imitation  of  the  courts  in  Westminster  Hall.  In  his 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  7.  Foxe,  15 — 17.  Holinshed,  1002.  Hay- 
ward, 295.  Strype,  ii.  170.  Rec.  103 — 107.  During  these  dis- 
turbances, martial  law  was  executed  in  every  part  of  the  kingdom ; 
and  often,  as  we  are  told,  with  little  attention  to  justice.  Sir 
Anthony  Kyngstone,  provost  of  the  western  army,  distinguished 
himself  by  the  promptitude  of  his  decisions,  and  the  pleasantry  with 
which  he  accompanied  them.  Having  dined  with  the  mayor  of 
Bodmin,  he  asked  him  if  the  gallows  were  sufficiently  strong.  The 
mayor  replied  that  he  thought  so.  “ Then,”  said  Kyngstone,  “ go 
11  up  and  try and  hanged  him  without  further  ceremony.  On 
another  occasion,  having  received  information  against  a miller,  he 
proceeded  to  the  mill,  and,  not  finding  the  master  at  home,  ordered 
his  servant  to  the  gallows,  bidding  him  be  content,  for  it  was  the 
best  service  which  he  had  ever  rendered  to  his  master. — Speed,  1 1 13. 

Hayward,  295. 

VOL.  V. 


U 


290 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


proclamations  lie  complained  that  the  commons  were 
ground  to  the  dust  by  the  oppression  of  the  rich ; and 
that  a new  service  had  been  forced  on  the  people  in 
opposition  to  the  conviction  of  their  consciences ; and 
declared  that,  if  he  and  his  associates  had  taken  up 
arms,  it  was  for  the  sole  purpose  of  placing  trusty  and 
noble  counsellors  round  the  king  during  his  minority, 
and  of  removing  those  “ who  confounded  things  sacred 
“ and  profane,  and  regarded  nothing  but  the  enriching 
“ of  themselves  with  the  public  treasure,  that  they 
“ might  riot  in  it  during  the  public  calamity.”1 
Obeyed  by  twenty  thousand  men,  he  treated  the 
offer  of  a pardon  with  scorn ; and  when  the  marquess 
of  Northampton  had  entered  Norwich  with  one  thou- 
sand English  horse,  and  a body  of  Italians  under 
Malatesta,  he  attacked  the  city,  set  one  part  of  it 
on  fire,  killed  the  lord  Sheffield  and  one  hundred 
men,  and  compelled  the  marquess  and  his  followers 
to  retire  out  of  the  county.  The  council  was  alarmed 
and  embarrassed ; troops  were  recalled  from  the  army 
in  Scotland ; the  gentlemen  of  the  neighbouring 
counties  were  ordered  by  proclamation  to  join  the 
royal  forces ; and  the  command  was  given  first  to  the 
protector,  and  afterwards  to  the  earl  of  Warwick. 
That  nobleman,  with  eight  thousand  men,  of  whom 
two  thousand  were  German  horse,  forced  his  way  into 
Norwich,  yet  so  incessant  were  the  insurgents  in  their 
attacks,  so  lavish  were  they  of  life,  that  they  often 
drove  the  gunners  from  the  batteries,  hurst  open  the 
gates,  and  fought  with  the  roj^alists  in  the  streets.  The 
earl  commanded  his  followers  to  swear  on  their  swords 
that  they  would  never  abandon  the  place ; and  by  his 
perseverance  was  at  last  enabled  to  attain  his  object 
1 Heylin,  77.  Godwin,  93. 


FRANCE  DECLARES  WAR. 


291 


of  removing  the  enemy  from  their  advantageous  posi-  chap. 
tion.  Compelled  by  want  of  provisions,  Ket  descended  ad.  1549. 
from  the  hill ; in  Dussingaale  he  was  overtaken  by  the  An~t  2? 
royal  army,  his  followers  were  broken  by  the  charge 
of  a large  body  of  regular  cavalry,  and  about  two 
thousand  men  perished  in  the  action  and  the  pursuit. 

The  remainder,  however,  surrounded  themselves  with 
a rampart  of  waggons,  and  a trench  fortified  with 
stakes ; and  to  an  offer  of  pardon  replied,  that  they 
knew  the  fate  which  awaited  them,  and  that  it  was 
better  to  perish  by  the  sword  than  by  the  halter. 

The  earl,  still  apprehensive  of  the  result,  spoke  to 
them  himself ; at  his  solicitation  they  accepted  a 
general  pardon ; and  the  severity  of  the  law  was 
confined  to  the  execution  of  Ket  on  Norwich  Castle, 
of  his  brother  on  the  steeple  of  Windham,  and  of 
nine  others  on  the  nine  branches  of  the  Oak  of  Ke- 
formation.1  It  is  to  these  events  that  we  owe  the 
institution  of  the  lords  lieutenants  of  counties,  who 
were  now  appointed  to  inquire  of  treason,  misprision 
of  treason,  insurrections  and  riots,  with  authority  to 
levy  men,  and  lead  them  against  the  enemies  of  the 
king.2 

So  many  insurrections  succeeding  and  strengthening 
each  other  had  shaken  the  power  of  the  protector  : 


1 Edward’s  Journal,  7,  8.  Strype,  ii.  Rec.  107.  Foxe,  17. 
Godwin,  94.  Holinshed,  1035,  1039*  Hayward,  299. 

2 Strype,  ii.  178.  At  this  time  ( J uly  2nd)  the  king  by  proclamation 


fixed  the  prices  of  cattle. 

I shall  extract  a few  instances. 

From  July  to 

November  to 

Christmas  to 

November. 

Christmas. 

Shrovetide. 

A fat  ox  of  largest  bone  . . 

£2 

5 0 

£2  6 8 

£284 

A steer  or  runt,  ditto  . . . 

I 

5 0 

1 6 8 

184 

A heifer,  ditto  , 

I 

2 0 

1 3 0 

A fat  sheep,  large  of  bone,  4s.  till  Michaelmas,  afterwards  4s.  4d.- 
See  Strype,  ii.  15 1. 


u 2 


292 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  hig  fan  was  accelerated  by  the  hostile  determination 
a.d.  1549.  of  the  king  of  France.  From  the  moment  that  Mary 
of  Scotland  had  reached  St.  Germains,  Somerset  had 
proposed  to  make  peace  with  the  Scots,  to  surrender 
Boulogne  to  the  French  monarch  for  a sum  of  money, 
and  to  unite  with  him  in  the  support  of  the  Pro- 
testant interest  in  Germany  against  the  overwhelming 
superiority  of  the  emperor.  But  he  yielded  against 
his  own  conviction  to  the  majority  of  the  council, 
who  pronounced  the  surrender  of  Boulogne  a measure 
calculated  to  cover  the  king’s  government  with  dis- 
grace. Let  them  rather  intrust  that  fortress  to  the 
protection  of  the  emperor,  and  offer  the  crown  of 
Scotland  to  the  ambition  of  Arran;  France  would 
then  cease  to  threaten  England  with  war,  and  Edward 
might  have  leisure  to  improve  his  resources,  and  to 
provide  against  future  contingencies.1  But  the  em- 
peror refused  to  act  against  the  faith  of  his  treaty 
with  Henry ; and  that  prince,  encouraged  by  the  in- 
surrections in  England,  sent  to  Edward  a declaration 
Aug.  25.  of  war.  Immediately  the  French  troops  poured  into 
the  Boulognnois.  Sellacques  was  taken  by  storm ; 
Ambleteuse  surrendered  after  a siege  of  some  days; 
the  garrison  of  Blackness  capitulated  at  the  first 
summons  ; and  Montalambert  was  evacuated  before 
the  arrival  of  the  enemy.2  Boulogne,  indeed,  defied 
the  efforts  of  the  French,  who  were  deterred  by  the 
approach  of  winter  from  forming  a regular  siege ; but 
there  was  little  doubt  that  at  the  return  of  spring 
it  would  fall,  unless  a numerous  army  could  be  col- 

1 Burnet,  ii.  130,  13 1. 

2 See  the  particulars  of  the  campaign  in  the  memoirs  of  Vieille- 
ville,  xxix.  190 — 202  ; and  the  Lettres  et  Memoires  d’estat  de 
Ribier,  ii.  217,  240,  241,  245. 


THE  PROTECTOR'S  POWER  DIMINISHES.  293 


lected  for  its  relief.  All  these  disasters  were  attri- 
buted to  the  misconduct  of  the  protector,  whose  reign 
was  now  rapidly  drawing  to  an  end.1 

1.  That  nobleman  had  sealed  his  own  doom  on 
the  day  on  which  he  signed  the  warrant  for  the  exe- 
cution of  his  brother  ; a warrant  that  disclosed  to  his 
colleagues  in  the  council  the  fate  which  they  might 
expect  from  his  vengeance,  if  they  should  afterwards 
incur  the  suspicion  of  being  his  enemies.  The  natural 
consequence  was  that  they  began  to  commune  with 
each  other,  and  to  forecast  the  most  likely  means  of 
eschewing  the  danger.  Somerset,  on  the  other  hand, 
grew  every  day  more  positive  and  despotic : he  would 
not  allow  his  pleasure  or  opinion  to  be  called  in  ques- 
tion : if  any  man  in  the  council  ventured  to  hint  doubt 
of  disapprobation,  he  was  either  heard  with  silent 
scorn,  or  was  silenced  at  once  with  the  most  pas- 
sionate expressions.  The  impolicy  of  such  conduct 
was  represented  to  the  protector  by  his  friend  Sir 
William  Paget,  in  an  expostulatory  letter.  “ How- 
“ soever,”  he  writes,  “ it  cometh  to  pass,  I cannot 
“ tell ; but  of  late  your  grace  is  grown  in  great 
“ choleric  fashions,  whensoever  you  are  contraried  in 

“ that  which  you  have  conceived  in  your  head A 

“ subject  in  great  authority,  as  your  grace  is,  using 
“ such  fashion,  is  like  to  fall  into  great  danger  and 
“ peril  of  his  own  person,  besides  that  to  the  common- 
“ wealth.”2  It  is  unnecessary  to  add,  that  this  pro- 
phetic warning  was  treated  with  contempt. 

2.  His  conduct  in  another  respect,  as  it  was  more 

1 Godwin,  95.  Nothing  was  more  felt  than  the  want  of  money. 
It  was  calculated  that  the  insurrections  had  cost  the  king  28,000 /. 
All  the  war-charges  of  the  year,  including  fortifications,  amounted 
to  1,356,000/. — Strype,  ii.  178. 

2 Letter  of  8th  of  May,  1549,  in  Strype,  ii.  Rec.  i.  108. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


294 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


open  to  tlie  public,  was  universally  condemned.  His 
very  friends  could  offer  no  apology  for  bis  rapacity. 
Of  a simple  knight  with  a slender  fortune,  he  had 
become  by  grants  from  the  crown,  some  indeed  under 
the  late  king,  but  most  since  his  elevation  to  the  pro- 
tectorship, and  therefore  of  his  own  dictation,  the 
possessor  of  more  than  two  hundred  manors,  parcels 
of  land,  and  hereditaments,  situate  in  different  parts 
of  the  kingdom,  but  principally  in  the  counties  of 
Wilts  and  Devon.1  On  the  other  hand,  that  mag- 
nificent pile  of  building,  which  still  retains  from  him 
the  name  of  Somerset  House,  was  a standing  memo- 
rial of  his  vanity  and  extravagance.  It  was  said  that, 
to  procure  a convenient  site  for  this  structure,  he 
had  demolished  the  parish  church  of  St.  Mary’s, 
and  compelled  the  bishops  of  Worcester,  Lichfield, 
and  Llandaff,  to  convey  to  him  the  episcopal  man- 
sions belonging  to  their  respective  sees ; that  to  fur- 
nish materials  he  had  pulled  down  several  chapels 
and  religious  edifices ; and  that,  at  a time  when  the 
kingdom,  through  the  poverty  of  the  exchequer,  was 
left  almost  without  a soldier  for  its  defence,  he  could 
afford  to  spend  the  daily  sum  of  one  hundred  pounds 
in  unnecessary  buildings.  This  insatiate  accumulation 
of  wealth,  joined  with  so  much  vanity,  and  the  reck- 
lessness with  which  he  sought  to  gratify  it,  could  not 
fail  to  detract  from  the  popularity  which  he  had  pre- 
viously enjoyed. 

3.  But  that  which  gave  the  rudest  shock  to  his 

1 See  grants  to  him  imo  Edwardi,  in  Strype,  ii.  308 ; also  the 
Inspeximus  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  June  2,  1572,  of  grants  made  to 
him  by  Edward.  The  names  of  more  than  two  hundred  manors  and 
parcels  of  land  in  the  counties  of  Wilts  and  Devon,  and  of  twenty 
more  in  other  shires,  are  recited  in  the  schedule  of  the  lands  restored 
to  him  after  his  submission  in  1550. 


POPULARITY  OP  WARWICK. 


295 


power  was  his  wavering  and  doubtful  policy  during  chap. 
the  late  commotions.  By  his  proclamations  and  com-  a.d.  ^549. 
missions  for  the  putting  down  of  in  closures  he  had 
appeared  to  give  the  sanction  of  his  authority  to  the 
demands  of  the  commons  : when  they  were  actually 
in  arms  against  the  royal  authority  he  had  always  lent 
an  indulgent  ear  to  their  petitions ; and  after  their 
defeat  he  had  repeatedly  sought  to  screen  them  from 
the  vengeance  of  the  conquerors.  By  this  he  had 
earned  for  himself  among  them  the  title  of  “ the  good 
“ duke,”  but  bad  awakened  a spirit  of  jealousy  and 
mistrust  among  the  landholders  and  all  those  who  had 
reason  to  fear  for  their  possessions  from  the  turbulent 
and  disaffected  temper  of  the  commons.  The  conduct 
of  the  earl  of  Warwick  had  been  the  very  reverse. 

His  policy  was  to  suppress  by  force  and  intimidation ; 
and  the  vigour  with  which  he  had  acted  against  the 
insurgents  of  Norfolk,  with  the  severe  punishment 
which  he  had  inflicted  on  their  leaders,  had  made  him 
the  idol  of  the  higher  classes,  who  began  to  look  up 
to  him  for  the  preservation  of  their  rights  and  pro- 
perties. He  was  now  on  his  return  from  Norfolk, 
crowned  with  the  laurels  of  victory,  and  welcomed 
with  the  acclamations  of  his  admirers.  In  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  London  several  lords  and  councillors 
joined  him  with  their  retainers  in  arms  and  new 
liveries,  and  the  whole  cavalcade  proceeded  in  martial 
array  through  the  city  to  his  house  at  Ely  Place. 

The  protector,  who,  with  the  archbishop,  Paget,  and 
Petre  and  Smith,  the  two  secretaries,  was  in  attend- 
ance on  the  king  at  Hampton  Court,  taking  this 
hostile  display  for  a declaration  of  war,  called  by 
proclamation  in  the  king’s  name  on  all  faithful  sub- 
jects to  repair  to  Hampton  Court  in  defensible  array,  Oct. 


296 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  for  the  protection  of  the  royal  person  against  a most 
a.d.  1549.  dangerous  conspiracy ; while  his  opponents,  by  cir- 
cular letters  published  on  the  same  day,  forbade 
obedience  to  his  orders,  and  accused  him  of  having 
neglected  to  pay  the  forces,  or  to  provision  the  king’s 
fortresses ; of  spending  the  public  money  in  extravagant 
erections  ; of  fomenting  divisions  between  the  higher 
and  the  lower  classes  in  the  nation ; of  seeking  the 
destruction  of  the  nobility,  and  of  intending  ulti- 
mately to  substitute  himself  in  the  place  of  the  young 
sovereign.1 

For  some  days  the  war  was  carried  on  between 
the  two  parties  with  proclamations,  placards,  hand- 
bills, and  demands  of  military  aid  from  the  city  ; but 
the  advantage  was  plainly  on  the  part  of  Warwick, 
who  not  only  received  from  the  lord  mayor  and 
aldermen  promises  of  co-operation,  but,  to  the  surprise 
and  dismay  of  his  opponents,  gained  by  threats  or 
promises  possession  of  the  Tower.  The  duke  by  his 
summons  had  drawn  multitudes  of  the  common  people 
into  the  neighbourhood  of  Hampton  Court.  One  day, 
Oct.  6.  holding  Edward  by  the  hand,  he  addressed  them  from 
the  gate  of  the  base-court,  in  a long  speech,  in  which 
he  praised  their  loyalty,  and  inveighed  against  the 
treasonous  designs  of  Warwick  and  Warwick’s  adhe- 
rents. But  a few  hours  later,  in  the  dead  of  the 
night,  with  five  hundred  armed  men,  he  conveyed 
the  young  king  from  Hampton  Court  to  Windsor 
Castle,  the  custody  of  which  he  intrusted  to  his  own 
retainers. 

On  the  preceding  day  he  had  sent  Sir  William 

1 Mr.  Tytler,  with  his  usual  industry,  has  discovered  several  of 
these  proclamations  and  hand-bills  in  the  State  Paper  Office.  See 
them  in  his  Edward  and  Mary  I.,  p.  205 — 211. 


OPPOSITION  TO  SOMERSET. 


297 


Petre  to  Ely  Place  with  certain  proposals.  Petre  chap. 
(whether  willingly  or  by  compulsion  is  unknown)  a.d.  i549. 
remained  with  his  colleagues,  who  sent  back  an  _ 

& . . Oct.  7* 

answer,  requiring  the  protector  to  submit  uncondi- 
tionately,  and  “ to  be  content  to  be  ordered  according 
“ to  justice  and  reason words  of  ominous  import, 
especially  to  one  who  could  not  forget  in  what  manner 
he  had  not  long  ago  ordered  his  own  brother  in  almost 
similar  circumstances.1 

At  Windsor  he  found  little  to  give  him  confidence. 

Scarcely  a gentleman  had  obeyed  the  summons  to 
meet  him  there.  The  commons,  indeed,  in  Hamp- 
shire and  Wiltshire  had  begun  to  rise,  and  their 
demagogues  talked  of  marching  to  the  aid  of  the 
good  duke : but  all  such  projects  were  suddenly 
checked  by  the  arrival  at  Wilton  and  Andover  of  the 
Lord  Russell  and  Sir  William  Herbert  with  part  of 
the  army  which  had  been  doing  execution  on  the 
insurgents  in  Devonshire.  These  leaders  made  no 
secret  of  their  adhesion  to  the  council  in  London, 
and  from  that  moment  the  cause  of  the  protector 
became  desperate.  That  he  might  disarm  the  hos- 
tility of  Warwick,  he  wrote  to  that  nobleman,  re- 
minding him  of  their  friendship  from  the  time  of  their 
youth ; and,  to  provide  for  his  own  safety,  he  pro- 
tested before  the  king  that  he  had  no  design  to  injure 
his  opponents,  but  was  willing  to  submit  the  quarrel 
between  him  and  them  to  four  arbitrators,  two  to  be 

1 See  this  letter  in  Ellis,  2nd  series,  i.  p.  166.  The  date,  the 
7 th  of  October,  is  of  importance,  as  it  shows  that  Somerset  had 
begun  to  despond,  and  the  councilhad  assumed  a decided  superiority, 
before  either  the  one  or  the  other  could  have  received  the  letters 
from  Lord  Russell  and  Sir  William  Herbert  to  which  those  events 
have  been  attributed.  The  letter  from  the  council  was  written  on 
the  7th,  their  letters  from  Andover  and  Wilton  on  the  8th  and  9th 
of  October. 


298 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  chosen  b}^  each  party.  This  offer  was  communicated 
a.d.  1549.  to  the  lords  in  a letter  from  the  king,  who  required 
them  “ to  bring  these  uproars  to  a quiet,”  and  put 
them  in  mind  that,  whatever  offences  the  protector 
might  have  committed,  it  was  still  in  the  power  of 
the  sovereign  to  grant  him  a pardon.  Cranmer, 
Paget,  and  Smith  wrote  to  them  at  the  same  time, 
recommending  forbearance,  and  stating  that  if,  as  was 
reported,  they  sought  the  life  of  the  duke,  it  was  but 
reasonable  that,  before  he  resigned  his  office,  he 
should  know  on  what  conditions  that  resignation 
was  expected.1  But  Warwick  and  his  friends,  in  the 
pride  of  victory,  would  listen  to  no  compromise.  In 
a proclamation,  consisting  of  eight  articles,  and  signed 
by  every  councillor  at  Ely  Place,  they  publicly  charged 
the  duke  with  divers  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors, 
and  through  the  influence  of  the  lord  mayor  and 
Oct.  8.  sheriffs  obtained  from  the  citizens  an  aid  of  five 
hundred  armed  men.  In  answer  to  the  proposals 
from  Hampton  Court  they  insisted  on  an  uncondi- 
tional surrender.2  In  their  reply  to  Edward  they 
accused  the  protector  of  arbitrary  and  tyrannical 
abuse  of  his  authority  ; and  in  their  letter  to  Cranmer, 
Paget,  and  Smith,  they  forewarned  these  councillors 
of  the  peril  to  which  they  had  already  exposed  them- 
selves by  delivering  the  king  into  the  hands  of  armed 
men,  not  his  sworn  servants ; it  is  moreover  said,  but  on 
the  credit  of  a very  questionable  document,  that  Sir 
Philip  Hoby,  the  bearer  of  their  letters,  made  to  the 
duke,  on  their  part,  the  most  flattering  promises  for 
the  express  purpose  of  deceiving  him,  and  inducing 


1 Stowe,  598.  Burnet,  iv.  298.  Tytler,  i.  223. 

2 Burnet,  iv.  299,  300.  Ellis,  2nd  series,  ii.  175. 


IS  COMMITTED  TO  THE  TOWER. 


299 


him  to  submit.1  However  that  may  be,  the  arch- 
bishop and  Paget  deemed  it  their  interest  to  transfer 
their  services  to  the  more  powerful  party,  and  with 
much  labour  prevailed  on  Somerset  and  his  friends 
to  disarm  their  followers,  to  restore  the  custody  of  the 
king  with  that  of  the  castle  to  the  royal  guards,  and 
to  place  themselves  without  reserve  at  the  mercy  of 
their  adversaries.2  The  next  day,  in  consequence  of 
a hint  from  Paget,  Sir  Anthony  Wingfield,  the  vice- 
chamberlain, arrived  with  a numerous  escort  to  secure 
the  person  of  the  duke.  Warwick  and  his  friends 
followed,  and  were  received  by  Edward  with  demon- 
strations of  pleasure,  which  showed  that  he  was  not 
unwilling  to  be  emancipated  from  the  control  of  his 
uncle.  The  Sunday  passed ; and  on  Monday  morning 
the  protector  was  deprived  of  his  office  in  due  form 
by  a writ  under  the  great  seal,  and  with  the  sign 
manual  of  the  king.  He  was  then  subjected  to  a 
searching  examination  before  the  council,  and  com- 
mitted a prisoner  to  the  care  of  the  earls  of  Hunting- 
don and  Southampton,  who  with  a body  of  three 
hundred  horse  conducted  him  to  the  metropolis.  The 
civic  authorities  had  already  been  summoned  to  keep 
watch  in  every  ward ; and  Somerset,  riding  between 
the  two  earls,  proceeded  slowly  through  Holborn  to 
his  prison  in  the  Tower.  Five  of  his  confidential 
advisers  were  incarcerated  with  him.3 

1 See  it  in  Tytler,  i.  238.  My  suspicion  is,  that  this  story  re- 
specting the  deception  attributed  to  Ho  by  was  invented  afterwards 
by  the  friends  of  Somerset,  to  extenuate  the  pusillanimity  of  his  sub- 
mission. Nor  am  I able  to  discover  the  menacing  allusion  to  the 
verbal  message  on  which  Mr.  Tytler  insists,  p.  236. 

2 See  the  letter  in  Ellis  (2nd  series,  ii.  1 71),  misdescribed  as  an 

offer  of  terms  of  accommodation.  It  contains  no  such  offer,  but 
states  with  great  satisfaction  that  “ all  things  are  well  acquieted”  by 
the  submission  of  Somerset  and  his  party.  3 Stowe,  600. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1549. 


Oct.  10. 


Oct.  11. 


Oct.  140 


300 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap.  The  confinement  of  Somerset  filled  the  reformers 
a.d.  1549.  with  the  most  gloomy  apprehensions.  It  was  not 
improbable  that  the  policy  or  the  resentment  of 
Warwick  might  induce  him  to  send  their  patron  to 
the  scaffold,  and  to  restore  the  ascendancy  of  the 
ancient  faith.  But,  whatever  might  be  his  real  feel- 
ings, the  earl  deemed  it  more  prudent  to  confirm  his 
control  over  the  mind,  by  indulging  the  wishes  of  the 
young  king,  his  repugnance  to  shed  the  blood  of  a 
second  uncle,  and  his  prejudices  against  the  doctrine 
and  the  worship  of  his  fathers.  Parliament  had  been 
Nov.  4.  prorogued  to  the  beginning  of  November.  When  it 
assembled,  Warwick  seldom  attended  in  his  place, 
and  affected  to  leave  the  members  to  the  unbiassed 
exercise  of  their  own  judgment.  Their  first  care  was 
to  prevent  the  return  of  the  disgraceful  and  dangerous 
occurrences  of  the  last  year ; and  a bill  was  passed, 
making  it  felony  for  any  persons  to  assemble  to  the 
number  of  twelve  or  more  for  the  purpose  of  abating 
the  rents  of  farms  or  the  price  of  provisions,  or  of 
destroying  houses  or  parks,  or  of  asserting  a right  to 
ways  or  commons,  if  they  continued  together  one 
hour  after  they  had  been  warned  to  disperse  by  pro- 
clamation from  a magistrate,  sheriff,  or  bailiff;  and 
raising  the  offence  to  high  treason,  when  the  object 
of  the  meeting  should  be  to  alter  the  laws,  or  to  kill 
or  to  imprison  any  member  of  the  king’s  council.1  At 
Christmas,  to  extinguish  the  hopes  of  those  who  still 
adhered  to  the  ancient  faith,  a circular  letter  was 
sent  to  the  clergy,  informing  them  of  the  king’s  inten- 
tion to  proceed  with  the  reformation  ; and  command- 
ing them  to  deliver  up  all  books  containing  any 


Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  104. 


RELIGIOUS  ENACTMENTS. 


301 


portion  of  the  former  service,  that  they  might  be  chap. 
burnt  or  destroyed.  But  this  proclamation  did  not  a.d.  1549. 
satisfy  the  expectations  of  the  more  zealous  among 
the  reformers,  and  an  act  was  soon  afterwards  passed, 
subjecting  every  individual,  either  clerk  or  layman, 
who  should  keep  in  his  possession  any  such  book,  to 
a fine  for  the  first  and  second  offence,  and  to  impri- 
sonment during  the  king’s  pleasure  for  the  third.1 
Moreover,  as  the  church  of  England  now  possessed 
a new  order  of  common  prayer  and  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  it  was  deemed  proper  that  its  minis- 
ters should  be  ordained  after  a new  form  ; and  it  was 
enacted,  that  six  prelates  and  six  other  persons 
learned  in  Grod’s  law  should  be  appointed  by  the 
king  to  compose  a manner  of  making  and  conse- 
crating archbishops,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons ; and 
that  such  manner,  being  set  forth  under  the  great 
seal  before  the  first  of  April,  should  afterwards  be 
lawfully  used  and  exercised,  and  none  other.2  In 
the  upper  house  some  of  the  prelates  drew  a frightful 
picture  of  the  national  morals,  and  attributed  the 
universal  prevalence  of  vice  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  exercise  of  their  jurisdiction  had  been  suspended 
or  enervated  by  successive  acts  of  parliament  and 
proclamations  of  the  council.  At  their  common  soli- 
citation leave  was  given  to  introduce  a bill  which 
should  restore  to  the  episcopal  courts  a portion  of 
their  former  authority.  But  its  provisions  were 
deemed  to  trench  both  on  the  powers  now  exercised 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  no.  The  earl  of  Derby,  the  bishops  of  Dur- 
ham, Carlisle,  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  Worcester,  Chichester,  and 
Westminster,  and  the  lords  Morley,  Stourton,  Wyndsor,  and  Whar- 
ton, voted  against  it. — Journals,  384. 

2 Ibid.  1 12.  It  was  opposed  by  the  bishops  of  Durham,  Carlisle, 
Worcester,  Chichester,  and  Westminster. — Journals,  384. 


302 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap.  by  the  crown,  and  on  the  liberties  of  the  subject; 
a.d.  1549.  the  earl  of  Warwick  attended  in  his  place  to  oppose 
it,  and  on  the  first  reading  it  was  rejected  without  a 
division. 

In  the  meantime  the  council  was  repeatedly  occu- 
pied with  the  fate  of  the  noble  prisoner  in  the  Tower. 
The  articles  prepared  against  him  might  be  divided 
into  three  classes,  charging  him  with  obstinacy,  in- 
capacity, and  bad  faith  during  the  late  insurrection, 
with  negligence  in  permitting  the  fortresses  near 
Boulogne  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  French,  and  with 
presumption  in  rejecting  the  advice  of  the  council, 
though  he  had  been  raised  to  the  protectorship  on  the 
express  condition  that  he  should  never  act  without  its 
assent.1  At  length  an  intimation  was  given  to  him, 
that,  if  he  hoped  for  pardon,  he  must  submit  to  a frank 
Dec.  23.  and  unqualified  acknowledgment  of  his  guilt.  The 
condition,  though  painful  to  his  feelings,  was  gratefully 
accepted.  On  his  knees  he  confessed  his  presumption, 
negligence,  and  incapacity,  subscribed  the  twenty  - 
nine  charges  against  him,  and  earnestly  implored 
for  mercy.  Life  was  promised;  but  on  condition 
that  he  should  forfeit  all  his  offices,  his  goods  and 
chattels,  and  a portion  of  his  lands  to  the  yearly  value 
of  two  thousand  pounds.  When,  however,  a bill  of 
Jan^.°2.  pains  and  penalties  was  introduced  for  this  purpose, 
some  of  the  peers  ventured  to  make  an  objection, 
which  no  man  would  have  dared  to  suggest  during  the 
last  reign.  They  observed  that  by  their  precipitancy 
in  such  cases  precedents  might  be  established  the  most 
dangerous  to  the  life  and  liberties  of  the  subject ; that 

1 That  the  last  charge  was  so  far  true,  may  be  presumed  from  the 
letters  of  advice  previously  written  by  Paget  to  Somerset,  on  May  8 
and  July  7.— Apud  Strype,  ii.  Rec.  107 — 114. 


SOMERSET  PARDONED. 


303 


before  the  house  could  ground  any  proceedings  on  the  c^p- 
confession  of  Somerset,  it  was  its  duty  to  ascertain  the  A-D-  *550- 
motives  which  had  induced  him  to  sign  it ; and  that  a 
deputation  ought  to  be  appointed  with  power  to  inter- 
rogate him  in  the  Tower.  To  this  the  ministers  as- 
sented ; the  deputation  on  its  returti  reported  that  he 
had  made  the  confession  of  his  own  free  will,  and  to 
exonerate  his  conscience ; and  the  bill,  having  passed 
through  both  houses  without  further  opposition,  re- 
ceived the  royal  assent.  Somerset,  however,  had  the 
courage  to  remonstrate  against  the  severity  of  his 
punishment ; and,  in  order  to  extenuate  his  offences, 
appealed  to  the  testimony  of  his  conscience  and  the 
uprightness  of  his  intentions.  But  the  council  replied 
with  harshness  and  warmth  ; the  reprimand  humbled 
him  to  the  dust ; and  he  signed  a second  and  still  Feb.  2. 
more  abject  submission,  in  which  he  disclaimed  all 
idea  of  justifying  his  conduct,  threw  himself  without 
reserve  on  the  mercy  of  his  sovereign,  and  expressed 
his  gratitude  to  the  king  and  the  council,  that  they 
had  been  content  to  take  his  property,  when  they 
might  justly  have  taken  his  life.  Having  given  se- 
curity for  the  payment  of  a heavy  fine,  he  was  dis-  Feb.  6. 
charged  from  the  Tower,  and  received  a pardon  drawn  Feb.  16. 
in  the  most  ample  form  that  legal  ingenuity  could 
devise,  but  with  the  exception  of  his  debts  to  the  king.1 
His  friends,  who  had  been  imprisoned  with  him,  reco- 
vered their  liberty  on  similar  conditions ; and  as  if  it 
had  been  resolved  to  execute  justice  with  the  strictest 
impartiality,  the  earl  of  Arundel  and  Sir  Bichard 
Southwell,  who  had  been  among  the  most  active  of 
his  opponents,  were  severally  mulcted  for  different 


1 Lords’  Journals,  374,  375.  Rym.  xv.  205. 


304 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1550. 


Feb.  2. 


offences,  the  first  in  the  sum  of  twelve  thousand,  the 
other  in  that  of  five  hundred  pounds.  This  revolution 
was  concluded  as  usual  by  rewards  to  the  principal 
actors  in  it.  The  earl  of  Warwick  obtained  the 
offices  of  great  master  and  lord  high  admiral,  the 
marquess  of  Northampton  that  of  great  chamberlain, 
and  the  lords  Russell  and  St.  John,  created  earls  of 
Bedford  and  Wiltshire,  were  appointed  lord  privy 
seal  and  lord  treasurer.  At  the  same  time  the  earls 
of  Arundel  and  Southampton,  the  supposed  confidants 
of  Warwick,  were  removed  from  the  council : the 
former  suffered  a short  confinement  in  his  own  house; 
the  latter,  after  a lingering  illness,  died  before  the  end 
of  summer.1 

While  Warwick  and  his  friends  were  thus  employed 
in  humbling  the  power  of  Somerset,  they  were  harassed 
with  apprehensions  of  the  French  war  ; and,  notwith- 
standing the  blame  which  they  had  thrown  on  the  late 
protector,  were  compelled  to  adopt  his  measures,  and 
to  submit  to  the  surrender  of  Boulogne.  The  French 
had  interrupted  the  communication  between  that  city 
and  Calais ; nor  was  the  earl  of  Huntingdon  able  to 
re-open  it,  though  he  had  taken  with  him  all  the  bands 
of  mercenaries,  and  three  thousand  English  veterans. 
The  treasury  was  exhausted  :2  the  garrison  suffered 
from  want  of  provisions ; and  the  enemy  eagerly 
expected  the  return  of  spring  to  commence  more 

1 Stowe,  603.  Rym.  xv.  194,  203,  208.  Strype,  ii.  195. 

2 From  the  report  of  the  senator  Barbaro  to  the  senate  of  Venice 
(communicated  by  H.  Howard,  of  Corby,  esq.),  it  appears  that  the 
king’s  income  greatly  exceeded  his  ordinary  expenditure  in  time  of 
peace,  the  former  being  about  350,000/.  and  the  latter  about  225,000  l. 
But  the  war  in  Scotland  for  three  years  had  plunged  him  deeply  in 
debt ; and  we  find  him  constantly  sending  messengers  to  Antwerp 
to  borrow  money  for  short  periods  at  high  rates  of  interest. — See 
Strype,  ii.  300,  312,  313,  323. 


NEGOTIATIONS. 


305 


active  operations.  A proposal  was  again  made  to 
the  emperor  to  take  Boulogne  into  his  custody ; this 
was  followed  by  an  offer  to  cede  it  to  him  in  full 
sovereignty,  on  condition  that  it  should  never  be  re- 
stored to  the  crown  of  France.  Both  were  refused  ; 
and,  as  a last  resource,  Antonio  Guidotti,  a merchant 
of  Florence,  was  employed  to  hint  to  the  French 
ministers  that  the  English  cabinet  was  not  adverse  to 
a peace.1  With  the  aid  of  this  unaccredited  agent  a 
secret  understanding  was  established ; ambassadors 
were  then  named ; and  the  conferences  were  opened. 
But  the  French,  sensible  of  their  superiority,  dictated 
the  conditions.  To  the  proposal,  that,  as  an  equivalent 
for  the  surrender  of  Boulogne,  Mary  of  Scotland 
should  be  contracted  to  Edward,  they  answered  that 
Henry  had  already  determined  to  marry  her  to  his 
own  son,  the  dauphin  ; and  when  it  was  demanded 
that  at  least  the  perpetual  pension  from  France  should 
be  confirmed,  and  the  arrears  discharged,  they  indig- 
nantly replied,  that  their  king  would  never  condescend 
to  pay  tribute  to  a foreign  crown  ; that  Henry  VIII. 
had  availed  himself  of  the  accidental  necessities  of 
Francis  to  extort  a pension  from  him  ; and  that  they 
with  equal  right  would  avail  themselves  of  the  present 
distress  of  the  king  of  England  to  make  him  renounce 
it.2  The  English  ambassadors  assumed  a tone  equally 
haughty  and  repulsive ; they  even  threatened  to  ter- 

1 The  English  writers  attribute  the  first  employment  of  Guidotti 
to  the  French  ministry,  the  French  to  the  English.  “ Les  Anglois 
“ lassez  de  la  guerre,  &c.,  m’ayant  fait  recherchez  d’envoyer  mes 
u deputiz.” — Henry,  apud  Ribeir,  ii.  287.  It  is  probable  that  it  was 
so,  for  in  reward  of  his  services  Guidotti  obtained  from  Edward  a 
pension  for  life  of  250Z.  per  annum  for  himself,  and  35Z.  10s.  for 
his  son. — Rym.  xv.  227.  He  was  also  knighted,  and  received  a 
douceur  of  250Z. — King  Edward’s  Journal,  11. 

2 See  the  letter  of  Paget,  apud  Strype,  ii.  Rec.  p.  114. 

YOL.  Y.  X 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1550. 


*S5°- 
Jan.  21. 


Feb.  22. 


306 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  minate  the  discussions ; but  their  actions  did  not 

a.d.  1550.  correspond  with  their  words ; each  day  they  receded 
from  some  or  other  of  their  demands ; and  at  length 
they  subscribed  to  the  terms  imposed  by  their  adver- 
saries. 

March  24.  The  treaty  was  prefaced  by  a long  and  fulsome 
panegyric  of  the  two  kings  ; Henry  and  Edward  were 
the  best  of  princes,  the  two  great  luminaries  of  the 
Christian  world;  personally  they  had  no  causes  of 
enmity  against  each  other ; and  if  their  fathers  had 
been  divided,  the  relics  of  that  hostility  they  were 
determined  to  suppress  for  ever.  With  this  view  they 
had  agreed,  i . That  there  should  be  between  the  two 
crowns  a peace,  league,  and  union,  which  should  last 
not  only  for  their  lives,  but  as  long  as  time  should 
endure;  2.  That  Boulogne  should  be  restored  to  the 
king  of  Erance,  with  the  ordnance  and  stores  which 
were  found  in  it  at  the  time  of  its  capture ; that  in 
return  for  the  moneys  already  spent  on  the  fortifica- 
tions, Henry  should  pay  to  Edward  two  hundred 
thousand  crowns  at  the  time  of  its  delivery,  and  two 
hundred  thousand  more  within  five  months ; on  con- 
dition that  the  English  should  previously  surrender 
Dunglass  and  Lauder  to  the  queen  of  Scots,  or,  if 
H unglass  and  Lauder  were  not  in  their  possession, 
should  raze  to  the  ground  the  fortresses  of  Roxburgh 
andAymouth;  3.  That  Scotland  should  be  compre- 
hended in  this  treaty,  if  the  queen  signified  her  ac- 
ceptance of  it  within  forty  days ; and  that  Edward 
should  not  hereafter  make  war  upon  her  or  her 
subjects,  unless  some  new  cause  of  offence  was  given; 
and  lastly,  that  all  the  rights,  claims,  and  pretensions 
of  England  against  Erance  and  Scotland,  or  of  Erance 
and  Scotland  against  England,  should  be  mutually 


PEACE  WITH  FRANCE  AND  SCOTLAND. 


307 


reserved.1  Though  Warwick  had  signed  the  instruc- 
tions to  the  ambassadors,  he  absented  himself  under 
pretence  of  sickness  from  the  council  on  the  day  on 
which  the  treaty  was  confirmed.  By  the  public  the 
conditions  were  considered  a national  disgrace.  The 
sum  of  two  millions  of  crowns,  which  Francis  had 
consented  to  give  for  the  surrender  of  Boulogne  at 
the  expiration  of  eight  years,  had  been  cut  down  to 
one-fifth ; the  right  of  enforcing  the  treaty  of  mar- 
riage between  Edward  and  Mary  of  Scotland  had 
been  abandoned;  and  the  perpetual  pension,  which 
Henry  VIII.  had  accepted  in  lieu  of  his  claim  to  the 
crown  of  France,  had  been  virtually  surrendered.  In 
fact  the  pretensions  of  the  former  kings  of  England 
were  after  this  treaty  suffered  to  sleep  in  silence  by 
their  successors.  They  contented  themselves  with  the 
sole  title  of  kings  of  France,  a barren  but  invidious 
distinction,  which,  after  two  centuries  and  a half,  was 
wisely  laid  aside  by  the  grandfather  of  her  present 
majesty. 

Though  the  partisans  of  the  new  doctrines  could 
depend  with  confidence  on  the  support  of  the  crown, 
the  late  commotions  had  proved  to  them  that  the 
reformation  still  rested  on  a very  insecure  founda- 
tion. Eleven-twelfths  of  the  nation  retained  a strong 
attachment  to  the  creed  of  their  fathers  f the  order 
for  the  introduction  of  the  new  liturgy  had  been  re- 
luctantly and  negligently  obeyed ; the  clergy,  for  the 

1 Rym.  xv.  211,  217.  The  queen  regent  of  Scotland  signified 
her  assent  in  due  form. — Chron.  Cat.  327. 

2 This  is  acknowledged  in  a confidential  letter  from  Paget  to  the 
protector,  written  July  7,  1549.  “The  use  of  the  old  religion  is 
“ forbidden  by  a law,  and  the  use  of  the  new  is  not  yet  printed  in 
“ the  stomachs  of  eleven  or  [0/]  twelve  parts  of  the  realm,  what 
“ countenance  soever  men  make  outwardly  to  please  them  in  whom 
“ they  see  the  power  resteth.” — Apud  Strype,  ii.  Reo.i  10. 

x 2 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1550. 


308 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1550. 


1549. 

August  9. 


most  part  hostile  to  the  cause,  sought  only  to  evade 
the  penalties  threatened  by  the  statute ; and  the 
nobility  and  gentry  were  believed  to  dissemble  their 
real  sentiments,  that  they  might  earn  the  favour,  or 
escape  the  displeasure,  of  the  court.  In  these  circum- 
stances the  archbishop  proposed  to  purge  the  church 
of  those  prelates  whose  disaffection  was  the  most 
notorious ; and  to  supply  their  places  with  men  of 
approved  zeal  and  orthodox  principles.  The  first 
on  whom  the  experiment  was  hazarded  was  Bonner, 
bishop  of  London,  whose  apathy  had  long  been  the 
subject  of  complaint,  but  whose  caution  had  preserved 
him  from  any  open  violation  of  the  law.  He  was 
summoned  before  the  council,  received  a severe  repri- 
mand, and  was  ordered  to  perform  the  new  service  at 
St.  Paul’s  on  every  festival  on  which  he  and  his  pre- 
decessors had  been  accustomed  to  celebrate  the  high 
mass ; to  proceed  in  his  court  against  all  reputed 
adulterers,  and  such  persons  as  absented  themselves 
from  the  English  liturgy,  or  refused  to  communicate 
according  to  the  parliamentary  form;  and  that  he 
should  preach  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross  on  the  first  of 
September,  and  afterwards  once  every  three  months, 
and  should  be  present  at  every  other  sermon  which 
should  be  made  there.  The  subject  for  his  first  dis- 
course was  given  to  him  in  writing,  and  divided  into 
three  parts.  He  was  to  show,  1 . That  “ the  rebels  in 
“ Devonshire,  Cornwall,  and  Norfolk,  did  not  only 
“ deserve  death  as  traitors,  but  accumulated  to  them- 
“ selves  eternal  damnation,  even  to  be  in  the  burning 
“ fire  of  hell,  with  Lucifer,  the  father  and  first  author 
“ of  rebellion 2.  That  in  religion,  God  regards  the 
internal  disposition  of  the  heart ; that  the  regulation 
of  the  external  service  belongs  to  the  supreme  magis- 


DEPRIVATION  OF  BONNER. 


309 


trate ; that  to  disobey  him  is  to  disobey  the  command  chap. 
of  God ; and  that  of  course  to  assist  at  the  mass,  a.d.  1549. 
which  had  been  prohibited  by  royal  authority,  was  not 
to  please,  but  to  offend  the  Almighty ; and  3.  That 
the  right  and  power  of  the  king  in  his  tender  years 
was  not  less  than  it  had  been  in  his  predecessors,  or 
would  be  in  himself  at  a more  advanced  age. 

At  the  appointed  day  crowds  assembled  to  hear  the 
prelate ; many  from  curiosity,  some  for  the  purpose  of 
censure.  In  his  sermon,  Bonner,  whether  it  was  from  Sept.  1. 
accident  or  design,  omitted  the  last  part ; the  omission 
was  observed  and  denounced  to  the  council  by  Latimer 
and  Hooper,  two  reformed  preachers ; and  Cranmer  Sept.  8. 
and  Bidley,  with  Petre  and  Smith,  the  king’s  secre- 
taries, and  May,  dean  of  St.  Pauls,  were  appointed  to 
try  and  punish  the  refractory  prelate.  Bonner  ap- 
peared before  his  judges,  with  the  undaunted  air  of  a 
man  who  feels  conscious  that  he  suffers  in  a just  cause. 

He  had,  he  told  them,  “ three  things, — a few  goods,  a 
“ poor  carcass,  and  a soul ; the  two  first  were  at  their 
“ disposal,  but  the  last  was  at  his  own.”  He  objected 
to  his  accusers  that  they  were  notorious  heretics ; ex- 
cepted against  Smith  as  his  known  enemy;  and,  in  a 
tone  of  pity  and  contempt,  twitted  the  archbishop 
with  his  subserviency  to  men  in  power,  and  the  incon- 
stancy of  his  religious  sentiments.  Being  compelled 
to  answer  upon  oath  the  questions  which  were  put  to 
him,  he  acknowledged  the  omission,  but  attributed  it  to 
the  imperfections  of  his  memory,  the  loss  of  his  notes, 
and  the  interruption  caused  by  an  unexpected  order 
which  he  received,  to  announce  from  the  pulpit  a 
victory  gained  over  the  insurgents.  He  contended, 
however,  that  he  had  compensated  for  this  involuntary 
error  by  the  eagerness  with  which  he  had  declaimed 


310 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  against  the  rebels ; and  avowed  his  conviction  that 
a.d.  1549.  his  real  crime,  though  carefully  kept  out  of  sight, 
consisted  in  the  freedom  with  which  he  had  explained 
the  Catholic  and  established  doctrine  respecting  the 
sacrament  of  the  altar.  It  was  in  vain  that  he  pro- 
tested against  the  authority  of  the  court,  or  that  he 
appealed  from  it  to  the  equity  of  the  king.  The 
Oct. 4,  archbishop  pronounced  the  sentence  of  deprivation; 
and  Bonner  was  remanded  to  the  Marshalsea,  where 
he  remained  a prisoner  till  the  king’s  death.1  To 
most  men  the  sentence  appeared  an  act  of  unwarrant- 
able severity ; his  subsequent  confinement,  before  he 
had  given  any  new  cause  of  offence,  was  certainly 
April  12.  repugnant  to  law  and  justice.  Bidley,  one  of  his 
judges,  succeeded  him  in  the  see  of  London,  bat  on 
conditions  which  seemed  to  stamp  a still  more  un- 
favourable character  on  the  whole  proceeding.  The 
bishopric  of  Westminster  was  dissolved  by  royal  au- 
thority; Bidley  accepted  its  lands  and  revenues,  in 
exchange  for  the  lands  and  revenues  belonging  to  his 
April  16.  own  church ; and  these,  four  days  later,  were  divided 
among  three  of  the  principal  lords  at  court,  Bich,  lord 
chancellor;  Wentworth,  lord  chamberlain;  and  Sir 
Thomas  Darcy,  vice-chamberlain.2 

The  deprivation  of  Bonner  would,  it  was  hoped, 
intimidate  and  subdue  the  constancy  of  Gardiner,  who 
had  now  been  for  two  years  a prisoner  in  the  Tower, 

1 Foxe,  ii.  20 — 42.  Burnet,  ii.  121 — 127.  State  Trials,  i.  631. 
The  pretence  for  his  imprisonment  was  that  u the  commissioners 
“ now  perceived  more  in  the  matter  than  they  did  before,  and  that 
“ his  behaviour  was  a greater  rebellion  than  he  was  aware  of.” — 
Foxe,  41. 

a Strype,  ii.  217,  218.  The  yearly  value  of  the  lands  resigned 
by  Ridley  was  480Z.  3s.  9fd.,  of  those  which  he  received  in  ex- 
change, 526/.  19s.  9|d.,  but  out  of  them  the  king  reserved  rents 
to  the  amount  of  100/. — Ibid. 


DEPRIVATION  OF  GARDINER.  311 

without  being  able  to  obtain  a trial,  or  even  a copy  of 
the  charges  against  him.1  He  was  visited  by  a depu- 
tation from  the  council,  and  urged  to  subscribe  a 
written  form  of  submission.  To  those  parts  of  it  which 
approved  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  acknow- 
ledged in  the  king  the  powers  with  which  the  statute 
had  invested  him  as  the  head  of  the  church,  he 
did  not  object;  but  no  consideration  could  induce  him 
to  confess  that  he  had  offended,  or  to  solicit  the  for- 
giveness of  his  sovereign.  A second  attempt  was 
made ; but,  if  on  this  occasion  the  form  of  submission 
was  softened  down,  articles  were  added  equally  repug- 
nant to  the  opinions  and  feelings  of  the  bishop.  He  was 
required  to  approve  of  the  dissolution  of  monasteries, 
and  the  secularization  of  ecclesiastical  property,  of  the 
homilies  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  the  paraphrase 
of  Erasmus,  and  of  every  religious  innovation  which 
had  been  established  by  act  of  parliament  or  by  order 
of  the  council.  G-ardiner  replied,  that  he  asked  for  no 
favour  ; he  sought  only  a legal  trial ; he  was  willing  to 
stand  or  fall  by  the  law.  To  talk  to  him  of  subscrip- 
tions in  prison  was  unfair.  Let  them  discharge  him  as 
an  innocent  man,  and  he  would  then  do  whatever  his 
duty  required ; but  were  he  to  subscribe  in  the  Tower, 
it  would  be  said  that  he  had  sacrificed  his  conscience  to 
purchase  his  liberty.  He  was  next  brought  before  the 
council ; the  articles  were  read  in  his  presence ; and 
he  was  asked  whether  he  was  willing  to  subscribe  as 

1 “ Considerynge,”  says  the  Council  Book,  “ the  longe  imprison- 
“ ment  that  the  bishope  of  Winchestere  hath  sustayned  (since  June 
“ 29th,  1548),  it  was  now  thought  time  he  should  be  spokene 
“ withall.”  The  king’s  book  of  proceedings  was  sent  to  him,  to 
which  he  replied,  that  “ he  could  make  no  direct  answere,  unless 
u he  were  at  libertie;  and  so  beinge,  he  would  saye  his  con- 
u scyence”  (fol.  99). 


CHAP 

TV. 

A.D.  1550. 
July  9. 


July  14. 


July  19. 


312 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  his  majesty  had  commanded.  He  replied,  that  “ in 
a.d.  1550.  “ all  things  that  his  majesty  could  lawfully  command, 
“ he  was  most  ready  to  obey ; but  forasmuch  as  there 
“ were  divers  things  required  of  him,  that  his  con- 
“ science  would  not  bear,  therefore  he  prayed  them  to 
“ have  him  excused/’  Sentence  was  immediately  pro- 
nounced by  secretary  Petre,  that  his  revenue  should 
be  sequestrated  from  that  day,  and  that,  if  he  did  not 
submit  within  three  months,  reckoning  each  month 

7 O 

for  a canonical  monition,  he  should  be  deprived  of  his 
Dec.  14.  bishopric.  At  length  a commission  was  issued  to  the 
metropolitan,  three  bishops,  and  six  laymen,  to  pro- 
ceed against  him  for  contempt;  but  he  defended 
himself  with  ability  and  perseverance ; protested 
against  some  of  the  judges  and  several  of  the  wit- 
nesses, as  accomplices  in  a conspiracy  against  him, 
which  originated  about  the  close  of  the  last  reign,  and 
had  been  continued  to  that  day ; and  brought  so  many 
Feb.  14.  proofs  of  his  allegations,  that,  to  prevent  unpleasant 
disclosures,  Cranmer,  on  the  twenty-second  day,  cut 
short  the  proceedings,  pronouncing  him  contumacious, 
and  adjudging  him  to  be  deprived  of  his  bishopric.1 
By  order  of  the  council,  he  was  sent  back  to  a meaner 
Feb.  15.  cell  in  the  Tower,  with  instructions  that  no  man 
should  see  him  but  one  of  the  warders ; that  all  his 
books  and  papers  should  be  taken  from  him  and  ex- 
amined ; and  that  he  should  be  refused  the  use  of  pen, 
March  8.  ink,  and  paper.2  Poynet,  bishop  of  Bochester,  suc- 

1 Compare  Foxe  (ii.  74 — 83),  and  Burnet  (ii.  150,  165),  with 
the  Council  Book,  Harl.  IVfSS.  352,  and  the  extracts  published  by- 
Mr.  Ellis,  in  the  Archajologia,  xviii.  135 — 146,  150 — 152  ; or 
State  Trials,  i.  551. 

2 The  chief  reason  assigned  for  this  severity  was  that  “ on  the 
“ daye  of  his  judgment  given  againste  him,  he  called  his  judges 
11  heretiques  and  sacramentary s,  they  beinge  there  the  kinge’s  com- 
“ missioneres,  and  of  his  highnes  counsell.” — Council  Book,  fol.  152. 


OF  DAY  AND  HEATH. 


313 


ceeded  him  at  Winchester ; but  on  conditions  similar 
to  those,  to  which  Bidley  had  consented  on  his  trans- 
lation to  London.  The  new  prelate  surrendered  to 
the  crown  all  the  revenues  of  that  wealthy  bishopric, 
and  received  in  return  rectories  and  lands  to  the 
yearly  value  of  two  thousand  marks.  A large  portion 
of  the  spoil  was  reserved  for  the  friends  of  the  earl 
of  Warwick ; Sir  Thomas  Wroth  was  gratified  with  a 
pension  for  life  of  one  hundred  pounds  ; and  Gates, 
Hobey,  Seymour,  Dudley,  Nevil,  and  Fitzwilliams 
obtained  still  more  valuable  grants  of  lordships  and 
manors,  for  themselves  and  their  heirs  for  ever.1 

There  were  two  other  prelates  prisoners  in  the 
Tower.  Heath,  bishop  of  Worcester,  and  Day,  bishop 
of  Chichester,  both  distinguished  by  their  learning, 
their  moderation,  and  their  attachment  to  the  ancient 
creed.  Heath,  though  he  had  voted  against  the  bill 
for  a new  ordinal,  was  named  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners ; probably  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  matter 
of  complaint  against  him.  He  disapproved  of  the  form 
devised  by  his  eleven  colleagues ; and  on  his  refusal 
to  subscribe  it,  was  committed  to  the  Fleet  for  con- 
tempt. After  an  imprisonment  of  eighteen  months, 
he  was  called  again  before  the  council,  and  com- 
manded to  subscribe  under  pain  of  deprivation  in  four 
days ; but  “ he  resolutely  answered  he  could  not 
“fynde  in  his  conscyence  to  do  it ; and  so,  as  a man 
“incorrigible,  he  was  returned  to  the  Fleete.”2  The 

1 Strype,  ii.  273. 

2 Council  Book,  fol.  200.  Burnet,  ii.  143.  This  ordinal  gave 
rise  to  a fierce  and  acrimonious  controversy  between  the  two  parties  ; 
the  one  maintaining  that,  though  it  omitted  a number  of  ceremonies, 
the  inventions  of  later  ages,  it  had  preserved  whatever  according  to 
Scripture  was  necessary  for  the  ordination  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons ; the  other,  that  it  had  been  compiled  chiefiy  by  men  who 
considered  ordination  as  an  unnecessary  rite  (see  chap.  ii.  p.  160, 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


Feb.  8. 
March  4. 

Sept.  22. 


314 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap.  bishopric  was  given  to  Hooper,  and  Heath  remained 
a.d.  1551.  till  the  king’s  death  in  prison.  Day  had  offended  in 
a different  point.  As  the  ancient  liturgy  had  been 
commuted  for  the  communion  service,  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass  for  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  it  was  proposed 
to  substitute  in  the  churches  tables  in  the  place  of  the 
altars,  which,  with  their  plate,  and  jewels,  and  decora- 
tions, would  supply  a new  harvest  to  the  rapacity  of 
the  royal  favourites.1  The  attempt  was  first  made 
by  a few  unauthorized  individuals ; it  was  followed 
by  an  experiment  on  a larger  scale  in  the  diocese  of 
London,  under  the  protection  of  Bishop  Bidley ; and 
at  last  the  council,  alleging  the  danger  of  dissension, 
Nov.  24.  issued  a general  injunction  to  the  bishops  to  remove 
Nov.  30.  the  altars  in  their  respective  dioceses.2  Day  replied 
that  his  conscience  would  not  permit  him  to  obey ; 
and  though  he  was  allowed  four  days  to  deliberate, 
Dec.  7.  though  Cranmer  and  Ridley  were  commissioned  to 
instruct  and  convert  him,  he  still  answered,  that  he 
“ thought  it  a less  evil  to  suffer  the  body  to  perish, 
“than  to  corrupt  the  soul  with  that  his  conscience 
“ would  not  bear.”  He  was  committed  for  this  con- 
tempt to  the  Fleet  ;3  a court  of  delegates  the  next 
Oct1!,  year  deprived  him  and  Heath  of  their  bishoprics;4 

note) ; and  on  that  account  had  carefully  omitted  what  was  requisite 
to  impart  the  sacerdotal  character,  and  that  it  made  no  material 
distinction  between  the  office  of  priest  and  bishop.  Under  Mary 
the  statute  authorizing  the  ordinal  was  repealed,  and  the  ordinations 
made  in  conformity  with  it  were  reputed  invalid  : under  Elizabeth 
it  was  re-enacted;  and  one  or  two  improvements  were  added  to 
meet  some  of  the  principal  difficulties.  In  its  favour,  see  Mason  de 
Ministerio  Anglicano,  1.  ii.  c.  15,  16,  17  : the  chief  arguments 
against  it  have  been  collected  by  Dodd,  Hist.  ii.  278 — 290. 

1 Heylin,  95. 

a Wilk.  Cone.  iv.  65. 

3 Council  Book,  fol.  140,  141. 

4 Great  attempts  were  previously  made  to  prevail  on  them  to  con- 
form. But  Heath  told  the  council  that  “ of  other  mynde  he  thought 


TROUBLES  OF  THE  LADY  MARY. 


315 


and  both,  notwithstanding  this  punishment,  were  kept 
in  custody  till  the  commencement  of  the  next 
reign.1 

There  still  remained  one  individual  whose  conver- 
sion in  the  estimation  of  the  reformers  would  have 
balanced  the  opposition  of  a whole  host  of  bishops, — 
the  lady  Mary,  the  sister  of  Edward,  and  the  pre- 
sumptive heir  to  the  crown.  She  had  embraced  the 
first  opportunity  of  expressing  to  the  protector  her 
dislike  of  further  innovation,  and  her  wish  that  reli- 
gion might,  during  the  minority  of  the  king,  be  pre- 
served in  the  same  state  in  which  it  had  been  left 
by  her  royal  father;  but  Somerset  replied,  that  his 
object  was  to  accomplish  the  real  intentions  of 
Henry,  who  on  his  death-bed  had  deeply  regretted 
that  he  could  not  live  to  complete  the  reformation. 
The  statute  of  uniformity  for  worship  quickly  supplied 
him  with  the  power  of  putting  her  constancy  to  the 
test.  Its  framers  appear  to  have  taken  for  their 
model  the  intolerance  of  the  Herman  reformers.  Hot 
only  did  they  introduce  the  new  liturgy  into  the 
national  churches  and  chapels,  but,  as  the  reader  will 
remember,  they  had  invaded  the  secrecy  of  the  closet, 
and  enacted  severe  penalties  against  every  priest  who 

u never  to  be,  adding  that  there  be  many  other  thinges  whereunto 
il  he  would  not  consent,  yf  he  were  demaunded,  as  to  take  down 
“ alteres,  and  set  up  tables.”  He  was  then  threatened  with  depri- 
vation, if  he  did  not  submit  within  two  days ; but  he  replied,  “ that 
u he  could  not  fynde  in  his  conscyence  to  do  it,  and  should  be  well 
11  contente  to  abyde  such  ende  either  bydeprivacon  or  otherwise  as 
u pleased  the  kinge’s  made.” — Council  Book,  fol.  200. 

1 Day,  after  two  years’  imprisonment,  petitioned  for  his  discharge, 
on  the  ground  that  deprivation  was  sufficient  punishment  for  a con- 
scientious dissent  from  an  injunction  ; but  added,  that  if  this  indul- 
gence “ were  to  be  bought  at  the  hazard  of  his  conscience,  he  thought 
it  better  to  want  it  than  to  purchase  so  poor  a commodity  at  so 
11  dear  a rate.”  His  petition  was  refused. — Strype,  ii.  391. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


316 


EDWARD  YI . 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


I549* 
June  22. 


should  celebrate,  every  lay  man  or  woman  who  should 
attend  where  a priest  celebrated  mass,  even  in  a pri- 
vate house.  Mary  received  an  admonition  that  she 
must  conform  to  the  provisions  of  the  statute.  She 
replied  that  she  did  not  consider  it  binding  in  con- 
science ; reminded  the  lords  that  they  had  sworn  to 
observe  the  laws  respecting  religion  which  had  been 
established  by  her  father ; hinted  that  they  could  not 
with  decency  refuse  so  small  an  indulgence  as  liberty 
of  worship  to  the  daughter  of  him  who  raised  them 
from  nothing  to  their  present  rank  and  authority, 
and  at  last  appealed  from  their  intolerance  to  the 
powerful  protection  of  her  cousin  the  emperor.  It 
chanced  to  be  the  very  time  when  the  English  cabinet 
solicited  the  aid  of  that  prince  for  the  preservation 
of  Boulogne.  After  a short  debate,  policy  prevailed 
over  fanaticism ; and  at  the  imperial  intercession  the 
indulgence  which  Mary  prayed  for  was  reluctantly 
granted.  But  after  the  conclusion  of  peace  with 
France,  the  friendship  of  Charles  appeared  of  less  im- 
portance, and  she  was  repeatedly  harassed  with  mes- 
sages from  the  council,  and  with  letters  from  her 
brother.  The  young  king  maintained  that  he  pos- 
sessed as  great  authority  in  religious  matters  as  had 
been  possessed  by  his  father ; and  declared  that  his 
love  of  God,  and  his  affection  for  his  sister,  forbade 
him  to  tolerate  her  obstinacy : still  he  preferred  mild- 
ness to  severity,  and  was  willing  to  supply  her  with 
teachers  who  might  instruct  her  ignorance  and  refute 
her  errors.  Her  reasoning,  and  complaints,  and  re- 
monstrances, were  now  equally  fruitless.  The  per- 
mission which  had  been  granted  at  the  request  of  the 
emperor  was  explained  to  have  been  limited  in  its 
duration  to  a few  months,  and  to  have  been  confined 


HER  FIRMNESS. 


317 


to  her  own  person,  with  the  exclusion  of  her  house-  chap. 
hold.  The  application  of  the  ambassador  in  her  a.d.  1550. 
favour  was  met  with  a prompt  and  peremptory  re-  Ap~g 
fusal ; and,  on  a rumour  of  her  intention  to  retire  to  August  14. 
the  continent,  a fleet  was  equipped  to  intercept  the 
communication  between  the  coast  of  Norfolk  and  the 
opposite  shore.  Soon  afterwards  indictments  under  December, 
the  statute  were  found  against  two  of  her  chaplains ; 
and  at  the  royal  invitation  Mary  herself  consented  to 
meet  in  person  the  lords  of  the  council.  They  parted 
mutually  dissatisfied  with  each  other.  She  asserted  March1  is. 
that  “ her  soul  was  (rod’s,  and  that  she  would  neither 
“ change  her  faith  nor  dissemble  her  opinion  they 
replied,  that  “ the  king  did  not  constrain  her  faith, 

“but  insisted  that  she  should  obey  like  a subject, 

“and  not  rule  like  a sovereign.” 1 

The  next  day  the  ambassador  came  to  her  aid  with  March  19. 
a denunciation  of  war  from  the  emperor,  if  Edward 
should  presume  to  violate  the  solemn  promise  which 
he  had  given  in  her  favour.  This  unexpected  menace 
perplexed  the  orthodoxy  of  the  council.  On  the  one 
hand  by  precipitation  they  would  expose  to  the  mercy 
of  an  enemy  the  goods  of  the  English  merchants,  the 
equipments  of  the  gens  d’armes,  and  fifteen  hundred 
quintals  of  gunpowder  in  the  depot  in  Flanders  : on 
the  other  hand  the  young  king  had  persuaded  himself 
that  he  could  not  conscientiously  suffer  his  sister  to 
practise  any  longer  an  idolatrous  worship,  and  persist 
in  the  daily  commission  of  a sin  to  damnation.  The 
metropolitan,  with  Ridley  and  Poynet,  the  two  new 
bishops  of  London  and  Rochester,  was  commissioned 
to  lay  the  spirit  which  he  had  raised ; and  they,  to 


1 Edward’s  Journal,  21. 


318 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  convince  the  royal  theologian,  strongly  maintained 
a.d.  1551.  that,  “ though  to  give  license  to  sin,  was  sin,  yet  to 
“ suffer  and  wink  at  it  for  a time  might  be  borne,  so 
“ all  haste  possible  were  used.”  With  reluctance, 
Edward  submitted  to  the  authority  of  these  grave  and 
reverend  fathers,  but  lamented  with  tears  the  blind 
infatuation  of  his  sister,  whose  obstinacy  he  could 
not  convince  by  argument,  nor  was  suffered  to  restrain 
by  due  course  of  law.1 

The  next  object  of  the  council  was  to  gain  time 
for  the  removal  of  the  stores  and  ammunition  in 
Elanders  to  an  English  port.  With  this  view  the 
ambassador  was  told  that  the  king  would  return  an 
answer  by  a messenger  of  his  own ; and  a month  later 
March  22.  Dr.  Wotton  was  despatched  to  represent  to  the  em- 
peror that  the  promise  given  by  Edward  was  of  a 
temporary  nature ; that  the  liturgy  adopted  in  Eng- 
land was  only  a revival  of  the  service  used  in  the 
first  ages ; that  conformity  was  enjoined  by  a statute 
which  bound  all  men,  even  the  king  himself;  and  that 
to  overlook  disobedience  in  the  first  subject  in  the 
realm,  would  be  to  encourage  disobedience  in  others. 
At  the  same  time,  to  proceed  with  impartiality,  it  was 
determined  to  punish  the  offenders  first  in  the  royal 
household,  then  in  that  of  the  princess.  Of  the  king’s 
servants,  Sir  Anthony  Brown  and  Serjeant  Morgan 
March  24.  were  sent  to  the  Fleet,  and  Sir  Clement  Smith  re- 
May^  ceived  a severe  reprimand;  from  the  family  of  the 
princess,  Dr.  Mallet,  the  head  chaplain,  was  selected 
for  an  example,  and  committed  to  close  custody  in 
the  Tower.2  An  active  correspondence  ensued  ;3  Mary 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  21.  Burnet,  ii.  172. 

2 Edward’s  Journal,  24.  Strype,  ii.  252.  Chron.  Cat.  323. 

3 Many  of  the  letters  which  were  written  on  this  occasion  are 


HER  SERVANTS  COMMITTED. 


319 


demanding  tlie  enlargement  of  her  chaplain,  the 
council  requiring  that  she  should  conform  to  the 
law.  At  length  Bochester,  Waldgrave,  and  Inglefield, 
the  chief  officers  of  her  household,  were  commanded 
to  prevent  the  use  of  the  ancient  service  in  the  house, 
and  to  communicate  this  order  to  the  servants  and 
chaplains  of  their  mistress.  Having  consulted  her, 
they  returned  to  the  council,  and  offered  to  submit  to 
any  punishment,  rather  than  undertake  what  “ they 
“ could  not  find  in  their  hearts  or  consciences  to 
“ perform.”  They  were  committed  to  the  Tower  for 
contempt ; 1 and  the  lord  chancellor,  Sir  Anthony 
Wyngfield,  and  Sir  William  Petre,  proceeding  to 
Copped  Hall,  in  Essex,  the  residence  of  the  princess, 

extant.  The  council  persist  in  asserting  that  the  innovations  in 
religion  do  not  affect  its  substance.  “ Our  greatest  change/'  they 
say,  “ is  not  in  the  substance  of  our  faith,  no,  not  in  one  article  of 
“ our  creed.  Only  the  difference  is  that  we  use  the  ceremonies, 
“ observations,  and  sacraments  of  our  religion,  as  the  apostles  and 
“ first  fathers  in  the  primitive  church  did.  You  use  the  same  that 
11  corruption  of  time  brought  in,  and  very  barbarousness  and  igno- 
11  ranee  nourished  ; and  seem  to  hold  for  custom  against  truth,  and 
“ we  for  truth  against  custom.”  She  declined  entering  into  the 
controversy,  and  contended  that  the  king  was  too  young  to  under- 
stand such  matters.  “ Give  me  leave,”  she  says,  “ to  write  what  I 
“ think  touching  your  majesty’s  letters.  Indeed  they  be  signed 
“ with  your  own  hand  ; and  nevertheless,  in  my  opinion,  not  your 
“ majesty’s  in  effect.  Because,  it  is  well  known,  that  although  (our 
“ Lord  be  praised)  your  majesty  hath  far  more  knowledge  and 
u greater  gifts  than  any  others  of  your  years,  yet  it  is  not  possible 
“ that  your  highness  can  at  these  years  be  judge  in  matters  of 
“ religion.  And  therefore  I take  it  that  the  matter  in  your  letter 
“ proceedeth  from  such  as  do  wish  these  things  to  take  place,  which 
“ be  most  agreeable  to  themselves,  by  whose  doings  (your  majesty 
“ not  offended)  I intend  not  to  rule  my  conscience.” — Foxe,  ii.  49,  52, 
Ellis,  ii.  177. 

1 They  were  to  be  kept  in  close  custody,  without  pen,  ink,  and 
paper,  and  with  a servant  in  the  cell  of  each  prisoner  to  observe 
his  conduct. — Council  Book,  194.  After  confinement  for  more  than 
six  months,  they  were  allowed  to  go  to  their  own  houses  as  pri- 
soners, March  18th,  and  were  set  at  liberty  April  24th. — Strype, 
ii.  256. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


August  19. 


August  28. 


320 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


announced  to  her,  her  chaplains,  and  servants,  the 
royal  pleasure.  These , after  a short  demur,  promised 
obedience  : she  replied : “ Bather  than  use  any  other 
“ service  than  was  used  at  the  death  of  the  late  king, 
“ my  father,  I will  lay  my  head  on  a block  and  suffer 
“ death.  When  the  king’s  majesty  shall  come  to 
“ such  years  that  he  maybe  able  to  judge  these  things 
“ himself,  his  majesty  shall  find  me  ready  to  obey  his 
“ orders  in  religion ; but  now,  though  he,  good  sweet 
“ king,  have  more  knowledge  than  any  other  of  his 
“ years,  yet  it  is  not  possible  that  he  can  be  a judge 
“ of  these  things.  If  my  chaplains  do  say  no  mass,  I 
“ can  hear  none.  They  may  do  therein  as  they  will ; 
“ but  none  of  your  new  service  shall  be  used  in  my 
“ house,  or  I will  not  tarry  in  it.”1 

After  this  period  we  hear  no  more  of  an  affair, 
which,  trifling  as  it  was  in  itself,  seems  to  have  been 
considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  endanger  the 
existence  of  the  amity  between  England  and  the 
imperial  dominions.  It  is  probable  that  Mary  con- 
tinued to  have  the  mass  celebrated,  but  in  greater 
privacy ; and  that  the  council  deemed  it  prudent  to 
connive  at  that  which  it  soon  became  dangerous  to 
notice.  An  attempt  to  marry  her  to  the  infant  of 
Portugal  had  failed ; and  the  declining  health  of  the 
king  directed  every  eye  towards  her  as  his  successor. 
She  occasionally  visited  her  sick  brother;  and  the 
state  which  she  assumed  was  calculated  to  overawe 
her  opponents.  She  was  attended  by  one  hundred 
and  fifty  or  two  hundred  knights  and  gentlemen  on 
horseback;  and  this  retinue  was  generally  aug- 
mented by  the  spontaneous  accession  of  some  of  the 

1 See  the  extracts  from  the  Council  Book  by  Mr.  Ellis,  printed 
in  the  Archseologia,  xviii.  154 — 166,  and  Original  Letters,  ii.  179. 


PUNISHMENT  OF  ERRONEOUS  DOCTRINES.  321 

first  personages  both,  male  and  female  in  the  king- 
dom.1 

Though  the  statutes  against  heresy  had  been  re- 
pealed in  the  first  year  of  the  king’s  reign,  still  the 
profession  of  erroneous  doctrine  was  held  to  be  an 
offence  punishable  by  the  common  law  of  the  realm. 
It  might  indeed  have  been  hoped  that  men  who  had 
writhed  under  the  lash  of  persecution  would  have 
learned  to  respect  the  rights  of  conscience.  But, 
however  forcibly  the  reformers  had  claimed  the  privi- 
lege of  judging  for  themselves  under  the  late  king, 
they  were  not  disposed  to  concede  it  to  others  when 
they  themselves  came  into  the  exercise  of  power. 
As  long,  indeed,  as  they  contended  that  their  inno- 
vations trenched  not  on  the  substance  of  the  ancient 
faith,  the  men  of  the  old  learning  were  secure  from 
prosecutions  for  heresy : they  could  be  proceeded 
against  only  for  a breach  of  the  Statute  of  Uniformity, 
or  for  contempt  of  the  royal  authority.  But  among 
the  new  teachers  themselves  there  were  several  whose 
discoveries  were  calculated  to  excite  in  the  breasts 
of  their  more  orthodox  brethren  feelings  of  alarm  and 
abhorrence.  Some  taught  that  the  prohibition  of 
bigamy  was  a papal  invention ; and  that  it  was  lawful 
for  any  man  at  his  option  to  have  one  or  two  wives, 
and  for  any  wife  to  have  one  or  two  husbands  ; 
others,  that  to  admit  the  government  of  a king  was 
to  reject  the  government  of  God;  and  many,  that 
children  baptized  in  infancy  should  be  afterwards  re- 
baptized ; that  human  laws  were  not  to  be  obeyed ; 
that  no  Christian  ought  to  bear  any  office  in  the  com- 
monwealth ; that  oaths  are  unlawful ; that  Christ  did 

1 See  in  particular  Strype,  ii.  372. 

VOL.  V.  Y 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


322 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551, 


not  take  flesh  of  the  Virgin ; that  sinners  cannot  be 
restored  to  grace  by  repentance ; and  that  all  things 
are  and  ought  to  be  in  common.1 

Of  these  doctrines,  some,  by  denying  the  incarnation, 
were  deemed  to  sap  the  very  foundation  of  Chris- 
tianity, others  tended  to  convulse  the  established 
order  of  society.  The  lords  of  the  council  were 
anxious  to  repel  the  charge  of  encouraging  tenets 
which,  in  the  eyes  of  Europe,  would  reflect  disgrace 
on  the  English  reformation  ; and  commissions  were 
repeatedly  issued,  appointing  by  letters  patent  the 
archbishop,  several  prelates,  and  certain  distinguished 
divines  and  civilians,  inquisitors  of  heretical  pravity. 
In  these  instruments  it  was  asserted  to  be  the  duty  of 
kings,  especially  of  one  who  bore  the  title  of  defender 
of  the  faith,  to  check  the  diffusion  of  error  by  the 
punishment  of  its  abettors — to  prevent  the  gangrene 
from  reaching  the  more  healthy  parts,  by  the  ampu- 
tation of  the  diseased  member ; and,  therefore,  as 
Edward  himself  could  not  at  all  times  attend  to  this 
important  concern,  he  delegated  to  the  inquisitors 
and  commissaries  power  to  enforce  the  Statute  of 
Uniformity  against  all  offenders,  to  hear  and  determine 
all  causes  of  heresy,  and  to  admit  the  repentant  to 
abjuration,  but  to  deliver  the  obstinate  to  the  arm  of 
the  civil  power.2 

The  first  who  appeared  before  the  archbishop  was 
Champneis,  a priest  who  had  taught  that  Christ  was 
not  God,  that  grace  was  inamissible,  and  that  the 
regenerate,  though  they  might  fall  by  the  outward, 

1 Stat.  3 Ed.  VI.  24.  Strype,  ii.  12,  90. 

2 Rym.  xv.  181,  250.  In  these  commissions  are  inserted  the 
names  of  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Thurlby,  Redman,  Latimer,  Coverdale, 
Parker,  afterwards  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  secretaries  Petre  and 
Cecil,  Cheek,  the  king’s  tutor,  and  several  others. 


JOAN  BOCHER  OF  KENT. 


323 


could  never  sin  by  the  inward,  man  ; lie  was  followed 
by  Puttow,  a tanner,  Thumb,  a butcher,  and  Ashton,  a 
priest,  who  had  embraced  the  tenets  of  Unitarianism. 
Terror  or  conviction  induced  them  to  abjure  : they 
were  sworn  never  to  revert  to  their  former  opinions, 
and  publicly  bore  fagots  during  the  sermon  at  St. 
Paul’s  Cross.1  But  no  fear  of  punishment  could 
subdue  the  obstinacy  of  a female  preacher,  Joan 
Bocher,  of  Kent.  During  the  last  reign  she  had  ren- 
dered important  services  to  the  reformers  by  the  clan- 
destine importation  of  prohibited  books,  which,  through 
the  agency  of  the  noted  Anne  Askew,  she  conveyed 
to  the  ladies  at  court.  She  was  now  summoned 
before  the  inquisitors  Cranmer,  Smith,  Cook,  Latimer, 
and  Lyell,(  and  was  charged  with  maintaining  that 
“ Christ  did  not  take  flesh  of  the  outward  man  of  the 
“ Virgin,  because  the  outward  man  was  conceived  in 
“ sin,  but  by  the  consent  of  the  inward  man,  which 
“was  undefiled  A In  this  unintelligible  jargon  she 
persisted  to  the  last ; and  when  the  archbishop  ex- 
communicated her  as  a heretic,  and  ordered  her 
to  be  delivered  to  the  secular  power,  she  replied : 
“It  is  a goodly  matter  to  consider  your  ignorance. 
“ It  was  not  long  ago  that  you  burned  Anne  Askew 
“ for  a piece  of  bread ; and  yet  came  yourselves  soon 
“ afterwards  to  believe  and  profess  the  same  doctrine 
“ for  which  you  burned  her ; and  now,  forsooth,  you 
“ will  needs  burn  me  for  a piece  of  flesh,  and  in  the 
“ end  will  come  to  believe  this  also,  when  you  have 
“read  the  scriptures  and  understand  them.” 

Prom  the  unwillingness  of  Edward  to  consent  to 
her  execution,  a year  elapsed  before  she  suffered. 
It  was  not  that  his  humanity  revolted  from  the  idea 
1 Wilk.  Con.  iv.  39 — 42.  Stowe,  596. 

Y 2 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


iS49. 

April. 


324 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  of  burning  her  at  the  stake : in  his  estimation  she  de- 
a.d.  1549.  served  the  severest  punishment  which  the  law  could 
inflict.  But  the  object  of  his  compassion  was  the 
future  condition  of  her  soul  in  another  world.  He 
argued  that,  as  long  as  she  remained  in  error,  she 
remained  in  sin,  and  that  to  deprive  her  of  life  in 
that  state  was  to  consign  her  soul  to  everlasting 
torments.  Cranmer  was  compelled  to  moot  the 
point  with  the  young  theologian : the  objection 
was  solved  by  the  example  of  Moses,  who  had 
condemned  blasphemers  to  be  stoned ; and  the 
king  with  tears  put  his  signature  to  the  warrant. 
The  bishops  of  London  and  Ely  made  in  vain  a 
last  attempt  to  convert  Bocher.  She  preserved 
her  constancy  at  the  very  stake ; and,  when  the 
May°2  Preacher,  Dr.  Scory,  undertook  to  refute  her  opinion, 
exclaimed  that  “ he  lied  like  a rogue,  and  had 
“ better  go  home  and  study  the  scripture/’1 

The  next  victim  was  Yon  Parris,  a Dutchman, 
and  a surgeon  in  London.  He  denied  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  and,  having  been  excommunicated  by 
his  brethren  of  the  Dutch  church  in  that  capital, 
April  6 was  arraigned  before  Cranmer,  Bidley,  May,  Cover- 
dale,  and  several  others.  Coverdale  acted  as  inter- 
preter : but  the  prisoner  refused  to  abjure  ; Cranmer 
pronounced  judgment,  and  delivered  him  to  the 
gaoler  at  the  Compter,  and  a few  days  later  the 
April  24.  unhappy  man  was  committed  to  the  flames.2 

1 Wilk.  Con.  iv.  42,  43.  Edward’s  Journal,  12.  Heylin,  89. 
Strype,  ii.  214.  Hayward,  27 6.  Strype  (473)  labours  to  throw 
some  doubt  on  the  part  attributed  to  Cranmer  in  this  prosecution, 
chiefly  “ because  he  was  not  present  at  her  condemnation.” — Todd, 
ii.  149.  But  that  he  was  present,  and  actually  pronounced  the 
judgment,  appears  from  his  own  register,  fol.  74,  75. 

* Wilk.  Con.  iv.  44,  45.  Stowe,  605.  Edward’s  Journal,  24. 


FOREIGN  RELIGIONISTS  IN  ENGLAND. 


325 


But  while  the  expression  of  Unitarian  sentiments 
was  thus  proscribed,  under  the  penalty  of  death  by 
burning,  and  the  exercise  of  the  ancient  worship, 
under  that  of  a long  or  perpetual  imprisonment,  a 
convenient  latitude  of  practice  and  opinion  was 
conceded  to  the  strangers  whom  the  fear  of  per- 
secution or  the  advantages  of  commerce  induced 
to  settle  in  England.  Foreign  religionists,  of  every 
nation  and  every  sect, — Frenchmen  and  Italians, 
Germans,  Poles,  and  Scots,  were  assured  of  an 
asylum  in  the  palace  of  the  archbishop.  He  procured 
for  them  livings  in  the  church  and  protection  at 
court ; and  in  return  he  called  on  them  to  aid  his 
efforts  in  enlightening  the  ignorance  and  dispelling 
the  prejudices  of  his  own  countrymen.  John  Knox 
was  appointed  chaplain  to  the  kin g,  and  itinerant 
preacher  throughout  the  kingdom ; Utenhoff  and 
Pierre  Alexandre  remained  at  Canterbury  to  purge 
the  clergy  from  the  leaven  of  popery : Faggio, 
Tremelio,  and  Cavalier  were  licensed  to  read  lectures 
on  the  Hebrew  language  at  Cambridge ; Martyr 
and  Bucer  undertook  to  teach  the  new  theology  in 
the  two  universities ; and  Joannes  a Lasco,  Yaleran- 
dus  Pollanus,  and  Angelo  Florio  were  named  by 
patent,  superintendents  and  preachers  in  the  congre- 
gations of  strangers  established  in  London  and 
Glastonbury.1  Many,  however,  disputed  the  policy 
of  thus  authorizing  independent  churches  of  foreign 
dissenters,  at  a time  when  conformity  was  so  rigor- 
ously exacted  from  the  natives ; or  of  intrusting  the 
education  of  the  clergy,  and  the  revision  of  doctri- 
nal matters,  to  men  who,  whatever  might  be  their 

1 Strype’s  Cranmer,  194,  234,  242.  Strype’s  Memorials,  ii. 
1 2 1 , 205,  240. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


326 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


i5S°- 
July  3. 


merit  and  acquirements,  differed  in  several  important 
points  from  the  established  creed,  and  unceasingly 
laboured  to  assimilate  in  doctrine  and  practice  the 
prelatic  church  of  England  to  the  Calvinistic 
churches  abroad. 

These  foreigners,  however,  accommodated  their 
consciences  to  the  existing  order  of  things  so  far  as 
to  tolerate  what  they  hoped  might  be  afterwards 
reformed  j1  but  there  was  a native  preacher  of  more 
unbending  principles,  whose  scruples  or  whose  ob- 
stinacy proved  dangerous  both  to  himself  and  to  the 
cause  which  he  espoused.  John  Hooper,  by  his 
activity,  his  fervid  declamation,  and  his  bold  though 
intemperate  zeal,  had  deserved  the  applause  and 
gratitude  of  the  well-wishers  to  the  new  doctrines. 
Edward  named  him  to  the  bishopric  of  Gloucester ; 
when  the  preacher  himself  opposed  an  unexpected 
obstacle  to  his  own  promotion.  How  could  Ice  swear 
obedience  to  the  metropolitan,  while  it  was  his 
duty  to  obey  no  spiritual  authority  but  that  of  the 
scriptures  ? How  could  he  submit  to  wear  the 
episcopal  habits,  the  livery  of  that  church  which  he 
had  so  often  denominated  the  harlot  of  Babylon? 
Cranmer  and  Ridley  attempted  to  convince  him  by 
argument,  and  to  influence  him  by  authority ; Bucer 
reminded  him  that  to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure ; 
and  Peter  Martyr  contended  that  the  wearing  of 
episcopal  habits,  though  meet  in  his  opinion  to  be 
abolished,  was  yet  an  indifferent  matter,  in  which 
the  most  timorous  might  conscientiously  acquiesce : 

1 I should  except  Knox,  who  had  the  honesty  to  refuse  a living, 
because  “many  things  were  worthy  of  reformation  in  England, 
“ without  the  reformation  whereof,  no  minister  did  or  could  dis- 
“ charge  his  conscience  before  God.” — Strype,  ii.  399. 


OBSTINACY  OF  HOOPER. 


327 


on  the  other  hand,  the  Helvetic  divines  applauded  chap. 
his  consistency ; the  earl  of  Warwick  conjured  the  a.d.  1550. 
archbishop  to  yield  in  favour  of  his  extraordinary  A~4 
merit ; and  the  king  promised  to  protect  that  prelate 
from  the  penalties  to  which  he  might  subject  himself 
by  swerving  from  the  ordinal.1  But  Cranmer  was 
unwilling  to  incur  the  danger  of  a premunire ; and 
Hooper  not  only  refused  to  submit,  but  published  a 
justification  of  his  conduct,  and  from  the  pulpit 
declaimed  against  the  habits,  the  ordinal,  and  the 
council.  The  new  church  was  on  the  point  of  being 
torn  into  fragments  by  the  intemperance  of  her  own 
children;  when  the  royal  authority  interposed,  and 
committed  the  refractory  preacher  to  the  Fleet.  In  Jan.  27. 
the  confinement  of  a prison,  the  fervour  of  his 
imagination  gradually  cooled;  the  rigour  of  his 
conscience  relaxed ; he  condescended  to  put  on  the 
polluted  habit ; he  took  the  obnoxious  oath ; he 
accepted  from  the  king  a patent,  empowering  him  March, 
to  govern  the  diocese  of  Gloucester,  and  fourteen 
months  later  was  transferred  to  the  united  bishopric 
of  Gloucester  and  Worcester.  By  this  union  a 
wider  field  was  opened  for  the  exercise  of  his  zeal ; 
but  at  the  same  time  an  ample  source  was  supplied 
for  the  rapacity  of  the  courtiers.  With  a double 
diocese  he  retained  a less  income ; the  larger  portion 
of  the  revenues  of  the  two  sees  being  destined  for 
the  men  who  at  this  period  were  actively  employed 
in  carving  out  of  the  possessions  of  the  church  for- 
tunes for  themselves  and  their  posterity.2 

1 Council  Book,  144,  147.  Strype’s  Cranmer,  211.  Memorials, 
ii.  Rec.  126.  Burnet,  ii.  152.  Collier,  ii.  293*.  Some  have  sup- 
posed that  he  objected,  not  to  the  oath  of  obedience,  but  to  the 
oath  of  supremacy. — Id.  307. 

2 Rym.  XV.  297—30 3,  320.  Strype,  ii.  355*— 357- 


328 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap.  While  the  nation  was  thus  distracted  by  religious 
a.d.  1551.  quarrels,  the  court  was  again  thrown  into  confusion 
by  a new  dissension  between  Somerset  and  Warwick. 
The  duke  had  come  from  the  Tower,  stripped  of 
office,  and  wealth,  and  influence.  But  the  vengeance 
of  his  enemies  seemed  to  he  satisfied ; he  was  allowed 
to  visit  his  nephew ; that  portion  of  his  goods  and 
chattels  which  had  escaped  the  rapacity  of  the 
courtiers  was  restored  to  him ; his  bonds  and  pledges 
were  cancelled;  and  he  was  at  last  readmitted  into 
the  council,  where  his  rank  of  duke  gave  to  him  the 
March  3i.  nominal  precedence,  though  in  point  of  power  he 
was  reduced  to  an  equality  with  the  meanest  of  his 
colleagues.  In  this  state  the  former  friendship 
between  him  and  Warwick  seemed  to  revive ; and 
their  reconciliation  was  apparently  cemented  by  the 
union  of  their  families,  in  the  marriage  of  Lord  Lisle, 
the  earl’s  eldest  son,  with  Anne,  one  of  the  daughters 
of  Somerset.  The  king,  accompanied  by  his  court, 
graced  the  ceremony  with  his  presence.  He  rejoiced 
at  the  restoration  of  harmony  in  his  council,  of 
friendship  between  an  uncle  whom  he  loved  and  a 
minister  whom  he  prized : but  his  joy  was  quickly 
interrupted  by  the  renewal  of  their  former  jealousies 
and  dissension.  Somerset  could  not  forget  what 
he  had  suffered : Warwick  dared  not  trust  the  man 
whom  he  had  injured.  The  duke  aspired  again  to 
April  8.  the  office  of  protector ; the  earl  determined  not  to 
descend  from  his  present  superiority.  Their  fears 
and  suspicions  led  them  to  attribute  to  each  other 
the  most  dangerous  designs : both  were  beset  with 
spies  and  informers ; both  were  deceived  and  ex- 
asperated by  false  friends  and  interested  advisers. 
But  Warwick  possessed  the  advantage  over  his 


DISSENSIONS  BETWEEN  SOMERSET  AND  WARWICK.  329 

adversary  in  the  council,  which  was  principally  com-  °hap. 
posed  of  his  associates,  and  in  the  palace,  where  the  a.d.  1551. 
king  was  surrounded  with  his  creatures.  Somerset, 
to  aid  his  views,  had  sought,  by  private  agents,  to 
secure  the  votes  of  several  among  the  peers  in  the  next 
parliament;  and,  to  recover  his  influence  with  his 
nephew,  had  requested  the  lord  Strange,  the  royal 
favourite,  to  suggest  to  Edward  a marriage  with  the 
lady  Jane  Seymour,  his  third  daughter.1 11  Into  the  Feb* l6- 
first  of  these  attempts  an  inquiry  was  instituted,  but 
afterwards  abandoned : the  second  was  defeated  by 
the  resolution  of  the  council  to  demand  for  their 
sovereign  the  hand  of  Elizabeth,  the  eldest  daughter 
of  the  king  of  France.  It  is  probable  that  on  this 
occasion  some  menaces  were  thrown  out.  The  lord 
Grey  hastily  departed  for  the  northern  counties,  and 
Somerset  had  prepared  to  follow  him,  when  he  was 
detained  by  the  asseveration  of  Sir  William  Herbert, 
that  no  injury  was  intended.  A second  reconciliation 
ensued;  for  some  days  costly  entertainments  were  April 24. 

1 It  appears  from  a letter  of  Warwick,  dated  Jan.  22,  and  pub- 
lished by  Strype  (ii.  278),  that  during*  the  winter  the  council  had 
deliberated  on  a secret  matter  of  extreme  importance  : that  it 
required  the  greatest  “ vigilance  and  circumspection that  the 
chancellor  and  treasurer  wished  “ to  wrap  it  up  in  silence,”  because 
it  was  “ not  expedient  it  should  come  in  question ;”  but  that  he 
(Warwick)  wished  to  be  “reformed,  seeing  it  had  been  so  far 
“ debated.”  He  makes  use  of  these  remarkable  expressions  : “ God 

11  preserve  our  master ! If  he  should  fail,  there  is  watchers  enough 
“ that  would  bring  it  in  question,  and  would  burden  you  and  others, 

“ who  will  not  now  understand  the  danger,  to  be  deceivers  of  the 
“ whole  body  of  the  realm  with  an  instrument  forged  to  execute 
“ your  malicious  meanings.”  He  alludes  undoubtedly  to  the  will 
of  Henry  VIII.,  the  sole  foundation  of  their  authority.  An  instru- 
ment was  devised  to  supply  the  defect.  By  it  Edward  ratified  all 
the  acts  of  the  council  up  to  that  day,  reappointed  the  same  coun- 
cillors during  his  pleasure,  and  invested  them  with  full  powers  to 
discharge  their  office.  But  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  adopted. 

— Strype,  ii.  Rec.  139. 


330 


EDWARD  VI. 


C?y.P*  8*ven  alternately  by  the  lords  of  each  party ; and  the 
a.d.  1551.  rival  chiefs  lavished  on  each  other  demonstrations 
of  friendship,  while  the  bitterest  animosity  was  fes- 
tering in  their  breasts.1 

The  marquess  of  Northampton,  attended  by  three 
earls,  the  eldest  sons  of  Somerset  and  Warwick,  and 
May  17.  several  lords  and  gentlemen,  proceeded  to  Paris, 
to  invest  the  king  of  Prance  with  the  order  of  the 
Garter,  and  to  seek  a wife  for  his  sovereign.  His 
first  demand,  of  the  young  queen  of  Scotland,  was 
instantly  refused  ; his  second,  of  the  princess  Eliza- 
beth, was  as  readily  granted.  The  negotiators  agreed 
that  as  soon  as  Elizabeth  had  completed  her  twelfth 
year  she  should  be  married  to  Edward;  but,  when 
they  came  to  the  settlement  of  her  portion,  the  Eng- 
lish demanded  twelve  hundred  thousand,  the  French 
offered  two  hundred  thousand  crowns.  This  differ- 
ence suspended  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  for  eight 
weeks  ; but  Edward’s  commissioners  successively  low- 
ered their  demand,  and  at  length,  accepting  the 
July  19.  offer  of  the  opposite  party,  agreed  to  assign  for  her 
dower  lands  in  England  to  the  yearly  amount  of  ten 
thousand  marks,  “ the  same  as  the  dower  of  the 
“most  illustrious  lady  Catherine,  daughter  of  Fer- 
“ dinand  king  of  Castile,  or  of  any  other  queen  of 
“ England,  lately  married  to  Henry  of  happy  memory, 
“king  of  England.”2  To  return  the  compliment, 
the  French  king  sent  to  his  destined  son-in-law  his 
order  of  St.  Michael,  by  the  marshal  St.  Andre, 
who  was  accompanied  by  a numerous  retinue.  This 
minister  was  received  on  his  landing  by  the  gentlemen 
of  the  county  to  the  amount  of  one  thousand  horse- 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  22,  39. 

2 lb.  25.  Rym.  xv.  273.  Chron.  Catal.  318,  320,  322. 


ARREST  OF  SOMERSET. 


331 


men,  and,  avoiding  the  capital  on  account-  of  the  chap. 
sweating  sickness,1  visited  the  king  at  Hampton  Court,  a.d.  1551. 
where  he  was  sumptuously  entertained  by  Edward 
himself,  by  the  duke  of  Somerset,  and  by  the  earl 
of  Warwick.  At  his  departure  he  received  several  July  31- 
valuable  presents.2 

These  tranquil  and  festive  occupations  did  not, 
however,  harmonize  with  the  projects  of  revenge  and 
bloodshed  which  were  secretly  meditated  by  the  two 
rivals.  But  the  timidity  and  imprudence  of  Somerset 
were  no  match  for  the  caution  and  decision  of  War- 
wick. That  nobleman  was  apprized  of  all  his  de- 
signs : to  cut  off  his  hope  of  an  asylum  in  the  northern 
counties,  he  procured  for  himself  the  general  war-  Sept.  27. 
denship  of  the  Scottish  marches,  with  all  that  pre- 
eminence and  authority  which  had  ever  been  pos- 
sessed by  any  former  warden  since  the  reign  of 
Bichard  II. ; and  within  a few  days  he  was  honoured  Oct.  u. 
with  the  title  of  duke  of  Northumberland,  which  had 
long  been  extinct  in  consequence  of  the  attainder 
of  the  lord  Thomas  Percy  in  1537.  At  the  same 
time,  to  strengthen  the  attachment  of  his  friends, 
he  prevailed  on  the  king  to  create  the  marquess  of 
Dorset  duke  of  Suffolk,3  the  earl  of  Wiltshire  mar- 

1 “ This  sweat  was  more  vehement  than  the  old  sweat : for,  if 
“ one  took  cold,  he  died  within  three  hours,  and,  if  he  escaped,  it 
“ held  him  but  nine  hours,  or  ten  at  the  most.  Also  if  he  slept  the 
u first  six  hours,  as  he  should  be  very  desirous  to  do,  then  he  roved, 

“ and  should  die  roving.” — Edward’s  Journal,  30.  The  deaths  in 
London,  on  July  10th,  amounted  to  100;  July  nth,  to  120;  in 
eleven  days,  from  the  8th  to  the  19th,  to  872. — Strype,  ii.  277,  279. 

2 I observe  that  the  presents  given  by  the  English  exceeded  in 
value  those  given  by  the  French  monarch.  St.  Andre  received  to 
the  value  of  3,000/. ; Northampton  to  that  of  500/. — Journ.  32. 

3 He  had  married  Frances,  the  eldest  daughter  of  Charles  Brandon 
duke  of  Suffolk,  by  Mary,  sister  of  Henry  VIII.  Her  two  brothers, 

Henry  duke  of  Suffolk,  and  the  lord  Charles,  had  died  during  the 
late  sickness. — Strype,  ii.  277. 


332 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  quess  of  Winchester,  Sir  William  Herbert  baron  of 
a.d.  1551.  Cardiff  and  earl  of  Pembroke,  and  to  confer  on  Cecil, 
Cheek,  Sidney,  and  Nevil,  the  honour  of  knight- 
hood. Somerset  gradually  discovered  the  danger 
which  threatened  him.  From  the  earl  of  Arundel 
he  received  advice  “ to  take  good  heed,  for  his  coun- 
“ sels  and  secrets  were  come  abroad and  011 
application  to  Cecil,  hitherto  his  creature,  hut  now 
appointed  secretary  to  the  king,  he  was  told  that,  if 
he  were  innocent,  he  had  nothing  to  fear ; if  guilty, 
Cecil  could  only  lament  the  misfortune  of  his  former 
patron.  To  this  cold  and  insulting  answer  he  re- 
turned a letter  of  defiance ; and  then  closely  examined 
Oet.  i4.  Sir  Thomas  Palmer,  who  was  now  become  to  him 
an  object  of  suspicion ; and  not  without  reason ; for 
he  had,  in  fact,  already  sworn  an  information  against 
him.  But  the  duke  suffered  himself  to  be  deceived 
by  the  bold  denial  of  the  traitor ; and  on  the  second 
Oct.  16.  day  afterwards  was  arrested  at  court,  and  hurried 
away  to  the  Tower.  The  duchess,  with  her  favourites 
Crane  and  Crane’s  wife,  followed  him  thither  the 
next  morning;  and  in  a few  days  most  of  his  supposed 
friends  and  advisers,  among  whom  were  the  earl  of 
Arundel,  the  lord  Paget,  and  the  lord  Dacres  of  the 
north,  were  safely  immured  in  the  same  prison. 

It  now  happened  that  the  thoughts  of  Edward 
were  diverted  from  the  approaching  fate  of  his  uncle 
by  the  presence  of  a royal  visitor,  the  queen-dowager 
of  Scotland,  who  on  her  way  back  from  France  to 
that  kingdom,  had  cast  anchor  in  the  harbour  of 
Oct.  22.  Portsmouth.  At  the  request  of  Henry  she  had  ob- 
tained permission  to  continue  her  journey  by  land  ; 
and,  to  do  her  honour,  the  gentlemen  of  each  county 
received  orders  to  attend  upon  her  as  she  passed. 


INDICTMENTS  AGAINST  SOMERSET. 


333 


Her  former  hostility  to  the  interests  of  England  gave  chap. 
her  no  claim  on  the  friendship  of  Edward ; but,  to  a.d.  1551. 
please  the  king  of  France,  it  had  been  determined 
to  treat  her  with  extraordinary  respect : she  was 
invited  to  the  capital,  and  introduced  to  the  young 
king,  who  met  her  in  the  great  Hall,  kissed  her, 
took  her  by  the  hand,  and  conducted  her  to  her  Nov.  4. 
chamber.  They  dined  together  in  state,  and  after 
her  departure  he  sent  her  a valuable  diamond.  She  Nov-  6* 
left  London  attended  by  a numerous  retinue  of  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  and  at  the  gate  received  a present  of 
one  hundred  marks  from  the  city.1 

Soon  after  her  departure  Somerset  was  brought  to 
trial.  By  the  statute  of  the  third  and  fourth  of  the 
king  it  had  been  made  treason  for  any  persons,  to 
the  number  of  forty  or  above,  to  assemble  in  forcible 
manner  “to  the  intent  to  murder,  kill,  or  slay,  take 
“ or  imprison  any  of  the  king’s  most  honourable  privy 
“ council and  felony  without  benefit  of  clergy  to 
procure  or  stir  up  any  persons  to  the  committal  of 
such  offences.  In  the  indictments  against  him  the 
duke  was  charged  with  both  the  treason  and  the 
felony,  so  that  to  his  enemies  it  mattered  little  on 
which  he  might  be  found  guilty:  since  in  either  case,  his 
life  would  be  equally  in  jeopardy,  and  equally  at  their 
mercy.  Before  the  trial,  the  marquess  of  Winchester 
was  created  lord  high  steward,  and  twenty-seven 
peers  were  summoned  to  attend,  among  whom  were 
numbered  Northumberland,  Northampton,  and  Pem- 
broke, the  three  great  enemies  of  the  accused.  As 
it  was  not  intended  to  subject  the  witnesses  to  a 
viva  voce  examination  in  open  court,  twenty-two 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  in  Burnet  by  Nares,  222,  223.  Strype,  ii. 

284.  Archseol.  xxviii.  168. 


334 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  lords  were  called  into  the  council  chamber : before 
iv. 

a.d.  1551.  whom  Sir  Thomas  Palmer,  Hammond,  Crane,  and 
Newdigate,  on  whose  depositions  the  counsel  for  the 
prosecution  chiefly  depended,  severally  made  oath 
that  in  their  confessions  they  had  strictly’'  adhered 
to  the  truth,  and  said  nothing  through  fear,  compul- 
sion, envy,  or  malice,  but  had  favoured  the  prisoner 
as  far  as  their  consciences  would  permit.  Unfortu- 
nately all  these  depositions  have  perished — at  least,  are 
not  known  to  exist.1  We  have  no  other  knowledge  of 
them  than  the  little  which  may  be  gleaned  from  the 
entries  in  the  journal  of  the  young  king,  and  from  a nar- 
rative of  the  trial,  which  he  inserted  in  a private  letter.2 
Prom  these  sources  we  learn  that,  according  to  the 
evidence,  the  great  object  of  the  conspiracy  was  to 

1 Mr.  Tytler’s  searches  for  them  in  the  State  Paper  Office  have 
proved  •unsuccessful.  He  discovered,  indeed,  two  confessions  by  the 
earl  of  Arundel ; which,  however,  were  not  employed  on  Somerset’s 
trial ; and  a paper  entitled  “ Crane’s  information  against  the  duke 
“ of  Somerset  and  the  earl  of  Arundel,”  which  Mr.  Tytler  considers 
as  a note  drawn  up  by  one  of  the  crown  lawyers  of  such  evidence 
against  Somerset  as  could  be  collected  from  the  depositions  of  the 
several  prisoners  (p.  41).  But  it  is  a paper  of  a very  different 
character.  It  was  both  then,  and  for  several  centuries,  the  custom 
after  a first  examination  in  the  Tower,  to  collect  from  the  answers 
all  such  passages  as  seemed  to  clash  with  each  other,  or  to  call  for 
explanation,  or  to  provoke  suspicion  of  concealment,  and  out  of 
them  to  form  a new  series  of  interrogations  for  a second  examination. 
Now  the  paper  in  question  is  plainly  one  of  these  collections.  In 
like  manner  the  paper  published  by  Sir  Henry  Ellis,  under  the  title 
of  “ Questions  put  to  the  duke  of  Somerset,”  is  not  a collection  of 
all  the  charges  against  him,  but  a collection  of  such  interrogations 
as  had  been  suggested  by  answers  to  former  questions,  and  which 
were  now  to  form  the  basis  of  a second  examination.  The  numbers 
10,  12,  14  are  taken  from  the  confessions  of  the  earl  of  Arundel, 
and  of  Crane. 

2 I may  remark  that  Edward’s  statement  in  his  Journal,  of  the 
earl  of  Arundel’s  confessions,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  original 
confessions  discovered  by  Mr.  Tytler.  Is  it  not  then  fair  to  conclude 
that  he  was  equally  careful  and  correct  in  the  accounts  which  he 
gives  of  other  confessions  and  depositions,  though  we  cannot  com- 
pare them  ? 


TRIAL  OF  SOMERSET. 


335 


secure  the  persons  of  Northumberland,  Northampton,  chap. 
and  Herbert,  who  governed  in  the  council,  and  were  a.d.  1551. 
the  chief  obstacles  to  the  recovery  by  Somerset  of 
his  former  office : that  for  this  purpose  they  were  to 
be  invited  by  the  lord  Paget  to  an  entertainment  to 
be  given  at  his  house  in  the  Strand ; in  which  case, 
if  they  came  slenderly  attended,  they  might  be  inter- 
cepted and  made  prisoners  in  the  way ; otherwise,  be 
surprised  and  despatched  at  table : that  Somerset 
should  then  raise  the  city,  and  with  the  aid  of  the 
apprentices  and  populace  get  possession  of  the  great 
seal:  that  Yane,  with  his  infantry,  and  the  duke’s 
horsemen,  should  attack  the  gens  d’armes;  and  that 
the  king,  being  now  again  in  the  hands  of  his  uncle, 
should  publish  a proclamation  charging  the  three 
councillors  with  treason.  In  addition  it  was  sworn 
that  the  duke  nightly  kept  a guard  of  twenty  armed 
men  near  his  chamber  at  Greenwich. 

On  the  following  morning  Somerset  was  arraigned 
before  his  peers,  and  defended  himself  with  spirit. 

The  witnesses,  Newdigate,  Hammond,  and  Seymour, 
were,  he  said,  his  men : they  had  sworn  fealty  to  him, 
and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  believed  against  him. 

Palmer  was  a man  of  bad  character,  and  totally  un- 
worthy of  credit.  Crane,  if  confronted  with  him, 
would  not  dare  to  repeat  his  evidence.  With  respect 
to  himself,  he  denied  that  he  ever  meant  to  raise  the 
city  of  London ; if  he  kept  a guard  near  his  chamber 
at  Greenwich,  it  was  to  protect  himself  from  illegal 
violence  ; the  idea  of  bringing  men  to  attack  the  gens 
d’armes  was  too  extravagant  to  enter  into  a sane 
mind.  Of  the  intended  banquet  he  knew  nothing : 
he  never  determined  to  kill  the  three  members  of  the 
council,  though  that  had  been  made  the  subject  of 


336 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


conversation.  So  ranch  he  would  not  deny,  but  “ he 
“ had  • determined  after  the  contrary.”1  He  main- 
tained with  oaths  that  he  had  never  desired  the  lord 
Strange  to  suggest  a marriage  between  the  king  and 
his  daughter.  Lord  Strange  deposed  upon  oath  that 
he  had  done  so. 

It  was  three  in  the  afternoon  before  the  lords  began 
to  deliberate  on  their  verdict.  With  respect  to  the  in- 
dictment for  felony  all  were  agreed ; but  with  regard 
to  the  charge  of  treason,  the  three  councillors,  whose 
lives  the  duke  is  said  to  have  sought,  assumed  the 
office  of  his  advocates.  They  called  upon  the  court 
“ to  eschew  rigour  and  extremity,”  to  grant  to  the 
accused  “ as  much  equity  as  might  anywise  be  devised,” 
and  therefore  to  be  content  with  a conviction  on  the 
minor  offence.2  It  is  probable  that  by  this  show  of 
moderation  and  forbearance  they  hoped  to  escape  the 
imputation  of  revenge  and  cruelty.3  Their  advice 
was,  however,  adopted.  Somerset  was  acquitted  of 
treason,  but  found  guilty  of  the  felony  without  a dis- 
sentient voice.4  He  wTas  then  recalled,  informed  of 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  225.  The  king  adds,  “yet  he  seemed  to 
“ confess  he  went  about  their  death.”  And  certainly,  if  that  was 
the  best  answer  which  he  could  make  to  the  charge,  it  would  not  go 
far  to  remove  any  suspicion  which  previously  existed. 

2 See  the  letter  of  the  lord  Steward,  written  on  the  following  day, 
in  Tytler,  ii.  63 — 65. 

8 Edward’s  Journal,  225.  According  to  the  king,  in  his  letter  to 
Fitzpatrick,  their  motive  was  that  “ men  might  not  think  they  did  it 
“ of  malice.” — Fuller,  429.  Mr.  Tytler,  however,  is  convinced  that 
the  real  motive  was,  the  inability  of  the  prosecutors  to  prove  that 
the  duke  intended  to  put  the  councillors  to  death ; founding  this 
opinion  on  the  notion  that  such  was  the  treason  in  question.  He  is 
evidently  in  error;  for  it  was  no  less  treason  “ to  take  or  imprison” 
them  than  to  kill  or  slay  them.  So  that  if  the  acquittal  of  treason 
acquitted  the  duke  of  any  intention  to  slay,  so  it  did  also  of  any  in- 
tention to  apprehend  them ; of  which,  however,  he  was  convicted  by 
being  found  guilty  of  the  felony. 

4 That  he  was  found  guilty  by  the  whole  body,  and  not  by  a 


somerset’s  reflections  in  prison.  337 


the  result  by  the  lord  Steward,  and  received  the  usual 
sentence  of  death  for  that  offence.  Falling  on  his 
knees,  “ he  gave  thanks  to  the  court  for  the  open 
“ trial,  cried  mercy  of  Northumberland,  Northampton, 
“ and  Pembroke,  for  his  ill-meaning  against  them,  and 
“ made  suit  for  his  life,  wife,  children,  servants,  and 
“ debts.”1  The  axe  of  the  Tower  was  now  turned 
from  him,  and  the  populace  observing  its  direction, 
when  he  left  the  court,  expressed  their  joy  by  repeated 
acclamations,  under  the  impression  that  he  had  been 
acquitted  of  every  offence. 

After  his  condemnation,  and  in  the  solitude  of  his 
cell,  Somerset  had  leisure  to  compare  his  situation 
with  that  of  the  lord  admiral,  in  the  same  place,  not 
three  years  before.  The  duke  had  indeed  enjoyed  an 
indulgence  which  he  had  refused  to  his  unfortunate 
brother — a public  trial  by  his  peers.  But  could  he 
expect  that  the  ambition  of  Warwick  would  prove 
less  jealous  or  inexorable  than  his  own;  that  an  enemy 
would  extend  to  him  that  mercy  which  lie  had  with- 
held from  one  of  his  own  blood?  He  made  indeed 
the  experiment ; but  every  avenue  to  the  throne  was 
closed ; his  nephew  was  convinced  of  his  guilt,  and  of 

majority  only,  is  plain  from  the  Record  : quilibet  eorum  separatim 
dixerunt  quod  prsedictus  Edvardus  nuper  dux  Somers. ; de  feloniis 
praedictis  fuit  culpabilis. — Coke’s  Entries,  fol.  482.  Neither  is  it 
true  that  this  was  only  felony,  when  the  party  continued  together 
after  proclamation  to  separate ; for,  as  has  been  already  noticed,  there 
is  another  part  of  the  same  act,  which,  without  mention  of  any  pro- 
clamation, makes  it  felony  for  any  person,  after  the  12th  of  February, 
“ to  stir  or  move  others  to  raise  or  make  any  traitorous  or  rebellious 
“ assembly,  to  the  intent  to  do,  or  exercise,  or  put  in  use,  any  of 
“ the  things  above  mentioned.” — Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  107. 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  225.  By  “ill-meaning”  Edward  means 
machinations  against  their  lives ; for  in  his  letter  to  Fitzpatrick, 
describing  the  same  thing,  he  says  : “ whom  he  confessed  he  meant 
“ to  destroy , altho’  before  he  swore  vehemently  to  the  contrary.” — 
Fuller,  409. 

VOL.  V.  Z 


CHAP.  - 
IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


338 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1551. 


1552. 
Jan.  22. 


the  expedience  of  his  punishment;  and  he  received 
for  answer  that  he  must  pay  the  forfeit  of  his  life,  but 
should  have  a long  respite  to  prepare  himself  for 
death.  Six  weeks  after  his  trial,  the  warrant  for  his 
execution  was  signed;1  and  at  an  early  hour,  eight  in 
the  morning,  he  was  delivered  to  the  sheriffs  of 
London,  and  by  them  conducted  to  the  scaffold  on 
Tower  Hill.  An  immense  crowd  had  already  assem- 
bled. The  duke’s  attention  to  the  poor  during  his 
protectorship,  and  his  constant  opposition  to  the  sys- 
tem of  inclosures,  had  created  him  many  friends  among 
the  lower  classes,  who  hastened  to  witness  his  end, 
but  still  flattered  themselves  with  the  hope  of  a 
reprieve.  In  his  address  from  the  scaffold,  he  said 
that  he  had  always  been  a true  subject  to  the  king, 
and  on  that  account  was  now  willing  to  lay  down  his 
life  in  obedience  to  the  law  ; that,  on  a review  of  his 
past  conduct,  there  was  nothing  which  he  regretted 
less  than  his  endeavours  to  reduce  religion  to  its  pre- 
sent state ; and  that  he  exhorted  the  people  to  profess 
it  and  practise  it,  if  they  wished  to  escape  those  visi- 
tations with  which  heaven  was  prepared  to  punish 
their  offences.  At  that  moment  a body  of  officers 
with  .bills  and  halberts,  who  had  been  ordered  to 
attend  the  execution,  issued  from  the  postern ; and, 
perceiving  that  they  were  behind  their  time,  rushed 
precipitately  towards  the  scaffold.  The  crowd  gave 
way  : the  spectators  at  a distance,  ignorant  of  the 
cause,  yielded  to  the  sudden  impulse  of  terror ; and, 
in  their  eagerness  to  escape  from  imaginary  danger, 

1 Rym.  xv.  295.  We  are  told  that  the  king  was  kept  from  re- 
flection by  a continued  series  of  occupations  and  amusements ; yet 
the  first  of  these  amusements  occurred  on  the  3rd  of  January,  a 
month  after  the  condemnation.  Such  things  always  took  place 
during  the  Christmas  holidays. — See  Edward’s  Journal,  43. 


IS  EXECUTED. 


339 


some  were  trampled  under  foot ; others,  to  the  number 
of  one  hundred,  were  driven  into  the  Tower  ditch ; 
and  many,  dispersing  themselves  through  the  city, 
ascribed  their  fright  to  an  earthquake,  to  a sudden 
peal  of  thunder,  or  to  some  miraculous  and  inex- 
plicable indication  of  the  divine  displeasure.  Order 
had  scarcely  been  restored,  when  Sir  Anthony  Brown, 
a member  of  the  council,  was  seen  approaching  on 
horseback.  Some  one  imprudently  shouted,  “Apardon, 
“ a pardon  and  the  word  was  quickly  echoed  from 
mouth  to  mouth,  till  it  reached  the  scaffold  : but  the 
duke,  after  a moment's  suspense,  learned  that  he  had 
been  deceived  by  the  fond  wishes  of  the  spectators. 
The  disappointment  called  up  a hectic  colour  in  his 
cheeks ; but  he  resumed  his  address  with  composure 
and  firmness  of  voice,  repeating  that  he  was  a loyal 
man,  exhorting  his  auditors  to  love  the  king,  and 
obey  his  counsellors,  and  desiring  their  prayers  that  he 
might  die  as  he  lived,  in  the  faith  of  Christ.  Then 
covering  his  face  with  his  handkerchief,  he  laid  his 
head  on  the  block.  At  one  stroke  it  was  severed 
from  the  body.1 

Of  the  many  individuals  accused  as  the  accomplices 
of  this  unfortunate  nobleman,  four  only,  Partridge 
and  Yane,  Stanhope  and  Arundel,  were  selected  for 
capital  punishment.  All  were  convicted  on  the  same 
evidence  as  the  duke ; all  at  the  place  of  execution 
maintained  their  innocence ; and  Yane,  in  strong 

1 Edward’s  Journal,  45.  Foxe,  98.  The  fanaticism  of  this  writer 
compares  the  tumult  at  the  execution  to  what  “ happened  unto 
“ Christ,  when  as  the  officers  of  the  high  priests  and  Pharisees 
11  coming  with  weapons  to  take  him,  being  astonished,  ran  back- 
“ wards,  and  fell  to  the  ground.” — Ibid.  The  true  cause  is  noticed 
by  Stowe,  who  was  present  (p.  607).  See  also  Ellis,  2nd  series,  ii. 
215. 

Z 2 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  155 


340 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


Dec.  3. 


Jan.  23. 


language,  assured  the  spectators  that  as  often  as 
Northumberland  should  lay  his  head  on  his  pillow,  he 
would  find  it  wet  with  their  blood.  The  two  first  died 
by  the  hand  of  the  hangman,  the  others  by  the  axe 
of  the  executioner.  Though  Paget  had  been  the 
confidential  adviser  of  Somerset,  though  it  was  said 
that  at  his  house  the  intended  assassination  should 
have  taken  place,  he  was  never  brought  to  trial.  But 
he  made  his  submission,  confessed  that  he  had  been 
guilty  of  peculation  in  the  offices  which  he  held  under 
the  crown,  surrendered  the  chancellorship  of  the 
duchy  of  Lancaster,  was  degraded  from  the  order  of 
the  Garter,  and  paid  a considerable  fine.  The  earl  of 
Arundel,  after  an  imprisonment  of  twelve  months, 
recovered  his  liberty,  but  not  till  he  had  acknow- 
ledged himself  cognizant  of  Somerset’s  intention  to 
make  the  councillors  his  prisoners,  had  resigned  the 
office  of  warden  of  several  royal  parks,  and  had  bound 
himself  to  pay  annually  to  the  king  the  sum  of  one 
thousand  marks  during  the  term  of  six  years.  The 
lord  Grey  and  the  other  prisoners  were  successively 
discharged. 1 

The  parliament  met  the  day  after  the  execution  of 
Somerset.  As  it  had  been  originally  summoned  by 
his  order  and  under  his  influence,  the  lower  house 
numbered  among  its  members  several  who  cherished 
a warm,  though  secret  attachment  to  his  memory. 
Their  opposition  to  the  court  animated  their  debates 
with  a spirit  of  freedom  hitherto  unknown,  and  by 


1 Council  Book,  fol.  259.  Stowe,  607,  608.  Strype,  ii.  310,  383. 
Edward’s  Journal,  56.  It  is  remarkable  that  all  of  them  were  by 
degrees  taken  into  favour,  and  obtained  the  remission  of  a part,  or 
of  the  whole  of  their  fines.  Arundel  was  again  admitted  into  the 
council ; and  was  moreover  discharged  of  his  debt  to  the  crown,  but 
only  four  days  before  the  king’s  death. 


• NEW  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER.  341 

delays  and  amendments  they  retarded  or  defeated  the  chap. 
favourite  measures  of  the  minister,  till  his  impatience  a.d.  i552. 
silenced  their  hostility  by  a hasty  dissolution.  Of  the 
acts  which  received  the  royal  assent,  a few  deserve 
the  reader’s  attention,  i.  Now,  for  the  first  time, 
was  made  a legal  provision  for  the  poor.  For  that 
purpose  the  churchwardens  received  authority  to  col- 
lect charitable  contributions,  and  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese  was  empowered  to  proceed  against  the  de- 
faulters.1 2.  It  was  about  three  years  since  the  com- 
position of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  had  been 
attributed  by  the  unanimous  assent  of  the  legislature 
to  “ the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  But  this  solemn 
declaration  had  not  convinced  the  scepticism  of  the 
foreign  teachers.  They  examined  the  book  with  a 
jealous  eye ; they  detected  passages  which,  in  their 
estimation,  savoured  of  superstition,  or  led  to  idolatry ; 
their  complaints  were  echoed  and  re-echoed  by  their 
English  disciples  ; and  Edward,  at  the  suggestion  of 
liis  favourite  instructors,  affirmed  that,  if  the  prelates 
did  not  undertake  the  task,  the  new  service  should 
be  freed  from  these  blemishes  without  their  assistance. 
Cranmer  submitted  the  book  in  a Latin  translation  to 
the  consideration  of  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  whose 
judgment  or  prejudice  recommended  several  omissions, 
and  explanations,  and  improvements;2  a committee 
of  bishops  and  divines  acquiesced  in  most  of  the 
animadversions  of  these  foreign  teachers ; and  the 
book  in  its  amended  form  received  the  assent  of  the 
convocation.  But  here  a new  difficulty  arose.  It 
was  the  province  of  the  clergy  to  decide  on  matters 
of  doctrine  and  worship ; how  then  could  they  submit 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  13 1. 

2 Strype’s  Cranmer,  209,  252,  App.  154.  Burnet,  ii.  155. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


/ 

342  EDWARD  VI. 

a work  approved  by  themselves  to  the  revision  of  the 
lay  branches  of  the  legislature  P To  elude  the  incon- 
venience, it  was  proposed  to  connect  the  amended 
service  and  the  ordinal  with  a bill,  which  was  then  in 
its  progress  through  parliament,  to  compel  by  addi- 
tional penalties  attendance  at  the  national  worship. 
The  clergy  hoped  that  both  forms  would  thus  steal 
through  the  two  houses  without  exciting  any  notice ; 
but  their  object  was  detected  and  defeated;  the 
books  were  read  through,  before  the  act  was  per- 
mitted to  pass ; and  both  without  alteration  were 
allowed  and  confirmed.  By  the  new  statute,  to 
which  they  had  been  appended,  the  bishops  were 
ordered  to  coerce  with  spiritual  censures  all  persons 
who  should  absent  themselves  from  the  amended 
form  of  service,  the  magistrates  with  corporal  punish- 
ment all  those  who  should  employ  any  other  service 
in  its  place.  To  hear,  or  be  present  at,  any  man- 
ner of  divine  worship,  or  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  or  ordination  of  ministers,  differing  from 
those  set  forth  by  authority,  subjected  the  offender  on 
the  first  conviction  to  imprisonment  during  the  space 
of  six  months,  on  the  second  during  the  space  of  one 
year,  and  on  the  third  during  the  term  of  his  natural 
life.1 

3.  An  attempt  was  made  by  the  crown  to  revive 
some  of  the  most  objectionable  acts  of  the  late  reign, 
though  they  had  been  repealed  in  Edward’s  first  par- 
liament. The  lords  without  hesitation  passed  a bill 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  120.  The  dissentients  to  this  intolerant 
act  were  the  earl  of  Derby,  the  bishops  of  Carlisle  and  Norwich,  and 
the  lords  Stourton  and  Wyndsor. — Journ.  421.  After  the  passing 
of  the  act  the  bishops  laid  aside  the  episcopal  dress,  and  the  pre- 
bendaries their  hoods,  because  the  rubric  required  nothing  more  than 
the  surplice. — Collier,  ii.  325. 


AMENDMENTS  OF  THE  LAW  OF  TREASON.  343 

making  it  treason  to  call  the  king  or  any  of  his  heirs  chap. 
a heretic,  schismatic,  tyrant,  or  usurper  ; but  the  rigour  a.d.  ^552. 
of  the  measure  was  mitigated  by  the  spirit  of  the 
Commons,  who,  as  had  been  done  already  with  respect 
to  the  denial  of  the  supremacy,  drew  a broad  distinc- 
tion between  the  different  manners  of  committing  the 
offence.  To  brand  the  king  with  such  disgraceful 
appellations  “by  writing,  printing,  carving, or  graving/' 
as  it  demanded  both  time  and  deliberation,  might  be 
assumed  as  a proof  of  malice,  and  call  for  the  very 
extremity  of  punishment ; but  to  do  it  in  words  only, 
would  often  proceed  from  indiscretion  or  the  sudden 
impulse  of  passion,  and  therefore  could  not  injustice 
deserve  so  severe  a retribution.  On  this  account  they 
visited  the  first  and  second  offence  with  forfeiture  and 
imprisonment  only,  and  reserved  for  the  third  the 
more  grievous  punishment  of  treason.  The  amend- 
ment, however,  was  of  small  importance  compared 
with  the  provision  with  which  it  was  accompanied. 

The  constant  complaint  of  accused  persons,  that  they 
could  not  establish  their  innocence,  because  they  were 
never  confronted  with  their  accusers,  had  attracted 
the  public  notice.  The  more  the  question  was  dis- 
cussed, the  more  the  iniquity  of  the  usual  method  of 
proceeding  was  condemned ; and  it  was  now  enacted, 
that  no  person  should  be  arraigned,  indicted,  con- 
victed, or  attainted  of  any  manner  of  treason,  unless 
on  the  oath  of  two  lawful  accusers,  who  should  be 
brought  before  him  at  the  time  of  his  arraignment, 
and  there  should  openly  avow  and  maintain  their 
charges  against  him.  Thus  was  laid  the  foundation  of 
a most  important  improvement  in  the  administration 
of  criminal  justice ; and  a maxim  was  introduced 
which  has  proved  the  best  shield  of  innocence  against 


344 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  the  jealousy,  the  arts,  and  the  vengeance  of  superior 
a.d.  1552.  power.1 

4.  The  utility  of  the  last  enactment  was  proved 
even  before  the  expiration  of  the  session.  In  1550 
Nynian  Mennill  had  accused  Tunstall,  bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, of  having  been  privy  to  an  intended  rising  in  the 
North,  but  had  failed  of  proving  the  charge,  through 
the  loss  of  a letter  written  by  the  bishop.  That  letter 
was  now  found  among  the  private  papers  of  the  late 
duke  of  Somerset,  and  Tunstall,  though  he  maintained 
that  it  was  susceptible  of  the  most  innocent  inter- 
pretation, was  committed  by  the  council  to  the  Tower, 
Decf  28.  “ there  to  abide  such  order  as  his  doings  by  the  course 

“ of  the  lawe  should  appear  to  have  deserved.”  But 
Northumberland  would  not  trust  to  the  course  of  the 
law.  He  applied  to  parliament  by  a bill  “ to  deprive 
“ Tunstall  of  his  bishopric  for  divers  heinous  offences.” 
It  was  passed  by  the  Lords ; but  the  Commons,  treating 
it  as  a bill  of  attainder,  contended  that  he  had  a right 
to  be  confronted  with  his  accuser,  and  petitioned  that 
both  Tunstall  and  Mennill  might  be  examined  before 
them.  Edward  was  advised  to  return  no  answer ; and 
they  declined  to  proceed  any  further  with  the  cause. 
Still  the  bishop  did  not  escape.  He  was  called  before 
certain  judges  and  doctors  of  common  law,  empowered 
to  examine  him  of  “ all  conspiracies,  contempts,  and 
“ concealments,  and,  if  he  were  guilty,  to  deprive 
Oct5i‘4  “ °f  his  bishopric.”  By  them  judgment  of  depri- 
vation was  pronounced,  and  he  was  sent  back  to  the 
Tower,  where  he  remained  a prisoner  till  the  acces- 
sion of  the  next  sovereign.2 * 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  144. 

2 Lords’  Journals,  418,  425.  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  Lord 

Stourton  dissented  (418).  Journals  of  Commons,  21,  23.  Extract 


AKTICLES  OF  EELIGION. 


345 


The  late  statute  insured  the  adoption  of  the  amended 
liturgy  in  every  diocese  of  the  kingdom  ; a French 
translation  communicated  it  to  the  natives  of  Jersey 
and  Guernsey.  But  were  not  the  king’s  subjects  in 
Ireland  equally  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  a form  of 
worship  in  their  own  tongue?  Undoubtedly  they 
were : but  it  had  long  been  the  object  of  the  govern- 
ment to  suppress  the  Irish  language  within  the  Eng- 
lish pale ; and,  to  have  chosen  that  language  for  the 
vehicle  of  religious  instruction  and  religious  worship, 
would  have  been  to  authorize  and  perpetuate  its  use. 
It  was,  I conceive,  for  this  reason  that  the  royal 
advisers  submitted  to  entail  on  themselves  that  re- 
proach, which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  cast  on 
the  church  of  Borne,  and  enjoined  by  proclamation 
that  the  Irish  should  attend  to  the  service  in  English, 
a language  which  few  among  them  could  understand.1 
By  Brown,  the  archbishop  of  Dublin,  and  four  of  his 
brethren,  the  order  was  cheerfully  obeyed  : Dowdal, 
archbishop  of  Armagh,  and  the  other  prelates,  rejected 
it  with  scorn.  The  consequence  was  that  the  ancient 
service  was  generally  retained : the  new  was  adopted 
in  those  places  only  where  an  armed  force  com- 
pelled its  introduction.  The  lords  of  the  council, 
to  punish  the  disobedience  of  Dowdal,  took  from  him 
the  title  of  primate  of  all  Ireland,  and  transferred 
it  to  his  more  obsequious  brother  the  archbishop  of 
Dublin.2 

from  Council  Book,  Archaeol.  xviii.  170;  and  Sfcrype,  iii.  192,  re- 
print of  1816. 

1 The  lord  deputy  was,  however,  instructed  “ to  cause  the  English 
u to  be  translated  into  the  Irish,  until  the  people  may  be  brought  to 
“ understand  the  English”  (Chron.  Cat.  31 1)  ; but  this  was  never 
done. 

2 Leland,  lib.  iii.  c.  8.  He  left  the  country,  and  the  king  ap- 
pointed him  a successor ; but  the  new  archbishop  died  in  a few  weeks, 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


346 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


At  the  same  time  Cranmer  had  the  satisfaction  to 
complete  two  works  of  the  highest  importance  to  the 
cause  of  the  reformation, — 1.  A Collection  of  the 
Articles  of  Religion,  and  2.  A Code  of  Ecclesiastical 
Constitutions.  1.  During  the  last  reign  he  had  sub- 
scribed with  the  other  prelates  every  test  of  orthodoxy 
promulgated  by  Henry ; but  after  the  death  of  that 
monarch  a new  light  appears  to  have  burst  upon  his 
mind ; in  the  homilies,  the  order  of  communion,  and 
the  English  service,  he  continued  to  recede  from  the 
opinions  which  he  had  formerly  approved ; and  it 
became  at  last  a problem  of  some  difficulty  to  de- 
termine what  was  or  was  not  to  be  considered  the 
faith  of  the  English  church.  To  remedy  the  evil, 
he  obtained  an  order  from  the  council  to  compose 
a body  of  religious  doctrine,  which,  when  it  had 
received  the  royal  approbation,  should  become  the 
authorized  standard  of  orthodoxy.  It  was  an  arduous 
and  invidious  undertaking.  Why,  it  might  be  asked, 
now  that  the  scriptures  were  open  to  all,  should  the 
opinion  of  any  one  man,  or  of  any  particular  body  of 
men,  bind  the  understandings  of  others?  or  why 
should  those  who  had  emancipated  themselves  from 
the  authority  of  the  pontiff  be  controlled  in  their 
belief  by  the  authority  of  the  king?  On  the  other 
hand,  the  archbishop  was  supported  by  the  example 
of  the  reformed  churches  abroad,  and  impelled  by 
the  necessity  of  enforcing  uniformity  among  the 
preachers  at  home,  who  by  their  dissensions  and 
contradictions  perplexed  and  disedified  their  hearers. 
Cranmer  proceeded  in  his  task  with  caution  and  de- 
liberation : a rough  copy  was  circulated  among  his 

and  Dowdal  recovered  his  see  at  the  accession  of  Mary. — Strype’s 
Cranmer,  278. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  LAWS.  347 

friends,  and  submitted  to  the  inspection  of  the 
council ; the  communications  of  others  were  gratefully 
accepted,  and  carefully  weighed ; even  Knox,  by 
command  of  the  king  was  consulted,1  and  the  work, 
when  it  had  received  the  last  corrections,  was  laid 
before  a committee  of  bishops  and  divines.  Their 
approbation  insured  that  of  the  king,  by  whose 
authority  it  was  published  in  forty-two  articles  in 
Latin  and  English ; and  by  whom,  a short  time 
before  his  death,  it  was  ordered  to  be  subscribed  by 
all  churchwardens,  schoolmasters,  and  clergymen.2 
On  this  foundation  rests  its  authority.  It  was  never 
ratified  by  parliament;  nor,  though  the  printed  title 
makes  the  assertion,3  does  it  appear  to  have  been 
sanctioned  by  the  convocation. 

2.  To  complete  the  reformation  but  one  thing 
more  was  now  wanting, — a code  of  ecclesiastical  laws 
in  abrogation  of  the  canons  which  the  realm  had  for- 
merly received  from  the  church  of  Kome.  The  idea 
of  such  a compilation  had  been  entertained  under 
Henry : it  was  reduced  to  practice  under  Edward. 
An  act  had  been  already  passed  empowering  the  king 

1 To  Knox  was  offered  a living,  as  a reward  for  his  services ; this 
he  refused,  but  accepted  the  sum  of  40 l. — Privy  Council  Book,  Oct. 
27th,  1552.  Strype,  ii.  389. 

2 Strype’s  Cranmer,  272,  293.  Burnet,  ii.  166;  hi,  210 — 213. 
Wilk.  Cone.  iv.  79.  In  the  universities  an  oath  was  exacted  from 
every  person  who  took  any  degree,  that  he  would  look  on  the  articles 
as  true  and  certain,  and  would  defend  them  in  all  places  as  agree- 
able to  the  word  of  God.  It  will,  however,  require  some  ingenuity 
to  reconcile  with  each  other  the  following  passages  in  that  oath  : 
Deo  teste  promitto  ac  spondeo,  me  scripturse  auctoritatem  hominum 
judiciis  praepositurum.  . . et  articulos.  . . . regia  auctoritate  in  lucem 
editos  pro  veris  et  certis  habiturum,  et  omni  in  loco,  tanquam  con- 
sentientes  cum  verbo  Dei  defensurum. — MSS.  Col.  Cor.  Chr.  Cant. 
Miscel.  P.  fol.  492. 

3 In  the  title-page  the  Articles  are  said  to  have  been  agreed  to  “ in 
“ the  synod  of  London  in  the  year  1552.” 


CHAP, 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


348 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


to  give  the  force  of  law  to  those  ecclesiastical  regu- 
lations, which  should  be  made  by  two  and  thirty 
commissioners  appointed  by  his  letters  patent,  and 
taken  in  equal  proportions  from  the  spirituality  and 
temporality  of  the  realm.  But  experience  showed 
that  the  number  of  the  commissioners  was  calculated 
to  breed  diversity  rather  than  uniformity  of  opinion ; 
and  the  task  was  delegated  in  the  first  instance 
to  a sub-committee  of  eight  persons,  with  the  arch- 
bishop at  their  head.  The  result  of  their  labours  is 
in  a great  measure  attributed  to  his  industry  and  re- 
search : but  it  was  put  into  a new  form,  and  couched 
in  more  elegant  language,  by  the  pens  of  Cheek  and 
Haddon.  Under  the  title  of  Reformatio  Legum  Ec- 
clesiasticarum,  it  treats  in  fifty -one  articles  of  all 
those  subjects  the  cognizance  of  which  appertained 
to  the  spiritual  courts ; and,  though  its  publication 
was  prevented  by  the  premature  death  of  the  king, 
it  must  be  considered  as  a most  interesting  document, 
inasmuch  as  it  discloses  to  us  the  sentiments  of  the 
leading  reformers  on  several  questions  of  the  first 
importance. 

It  commences  with  an  exposition  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  enacts  the  punishment  of  forfeiture  and 
death  against  those  who  deny  the  Christian  religion. 
It  then  regulates  the  proceedings  in  cases  of  heresy, 
the  ceremony  of  abjuration,  and  the  delivery  of  the 
obstinate  heretic  to  the  civil  magistrate,  that  he  may 
suffer  death  according  to  law.  Blasphemy  subjects 
the  offender  to  the  same  penalty.  The  marriages  of 
minors,  without  the  consent  of  their  parents  or 
guardians,  and  of  all  persons  whomsoever,  without 
the  previous  publication  of  banns,  or  the  entire  per- 
formance of  the  ceremony  in  the  church  according 


SICKNESS  OF  THE  KING. 


349 


to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  are  pronounced  of 
no  effect.  The  seducer  of  a single  woman  is  com- 
pelled to  marry  her,  or  to  endow  her  with  one-third 
of  his  fortune ; or,  if  he  have  no  fortune,  to  charge 
himself  with  the  maintenance  of  their  illegitimate 
offspring,  and  to  suffer  some  additional  and  arbitrary 
punishment.  Adultery  is  visited  with  imprisonment 
or  transportation  for  life.  In  addition,  if  the  offen- 
der be  the  wife,  she  forfeits  her  jointure,  and  all  the 
advantages  she  might  have  derived  from  her  marriage; 
if  the  husband,  he  returns  to  the  wife  her  dower, 
and  adds  to  it  one-half  of  his  own  fortune.  But  to 
a clergyman,  in  whom  the  enormity  of  the  offence 
increases  in  proportion  to  the  sanctity  of  his  office, 
the  penalty  is  more  severe.  He  loses  his  benefice, 
and  surrenders  the  whole  of  his  estate,  if  he  be  mar- 
ried, to  the  unoffending  party,  for  the  support  of  her 
and  her  children ; if  unmarried,  to  the  bishop,  that 
it  may  be  devoted  to  purposes  of  charity. 

Divorces  are  allowed  not  only  on  account  of  adul- 
tery, but  also  of  desertion,  long  absence,  cruel  treat- 
ment, and  danger  to  health  or  life : in  all  which 
cases  the  innocent  party  is  permitted  to  marry 
again,  the  guilty  condemned  to  perpetual  exile  or 
imprisonment.  To  these  five  causes  is  added  con- 
firmed incompatibility  of  temper ; but  this,  though 
it  may  justify  a separation,  does  not  allow  to  either 
party  the  privilege  of  contracting  another  marriage.1 
In  cases  of  defamation,  when,  from  the  destruction 
of  papers  or  the  absence  of  witnesses,  the  truth  can- 
not be  discovered,  the  accused  is  permitted  to  clear 
his  character  by  his  oath,  provided  he  can  produce 
a competent  number  of  compurgators,  who  shall 
1 Reform.  Leg.  c*  viii. — xii. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1552. 


350 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  swear  that  they  give  full  credit  to  his  assertion. 
a.d.  1552.  Commutation  of  penance  for  money  is  conceded  on 
particular  occasions;  the  right  of  devising  property 
by  will  is  refused  to  married  women,  slaves,  children 
under  fourteen  years  of  age,  heretics,  libellers,  fe- 
males of  loose  character,  usurers,  and  convicts 
sentenced  to  death,  or  perpetual  banishment  or  im- 
prisonment ; and  excommunication  is  asserted  to  cut 
off  the  offender  from  the  society  of  the  faithful,  the 
protection  of  God,  and  the  expectation  of  future  hap- 
piness ; and  to  consign  him  to  everlasting  punishment, 
and  the  tyranny  of  the  devil.1 

Edward  had  inherited  from  his  mother  a weak  and 
delicate  constitution.  In  the  spring  of  the  year  he 
was  considerably  reduced  by  successive  attacks  of  the 
measles  and  the  small-pox : in  the  latter  part  of  the 
summer,  a troublesome  cough,  the  effect  of  imprudent 
exposure  to  the  cold,  terminated  in  an  inflammation  on 
the  lungs ; and,  when  the  new  parliament  assembled, 
the  king’s  weakness  compelled  him  to  meet  the  two 
houses  at  his  residence  of  Whitehall.  In  the  morning 
March  1.  after  he  had  heard  a sermon  from  the  bishop  of 
London,  and  received  the  sacrament  in  company  with 
several  of  the  lords,  he  proceeded  in  state  to  a 
neighbouring  chamber,  in  which  the  session  was 
opened  with  a speech  from  the  chancellor,  Goodrick, 
bishop  of  Ely.  Northumberland  had  no  reason  to 
fear  opposition  from  the  present  parliament.  To  se- 
cure a majority  in  the  lower  house,  orders  had  been 
sent  to  the  sheriffs  to  return  grave  and  able  men,  and 
to  attend  to  the  recommendations  of  the  privy  coun- 
cillors in  their  neighbourhood;  and  sixteen  individuals, 

1 See  the  Reformatio  Legum  Ecclesiasticarum,  published  anno 
i57i. 


Edward’s  last  parliament.  351 


all  of  them  employed  at  court,  and  high  in  the  confi- 
dence of  the  minister,  had  been  nominated  by  the 
king  himself,  in  letters  addressed  to  the  sheriffs  of 
Hampshire,  Suffolk,  Berks,  Bedford,  Surrey,  Cam- 
bridge, Oxford,  and  Northamptonshire.1  The  great 
object  of  Northumberland  was  to  obtain  money  for 
the  payment  of  the  royal  debts,  which  amounted  to 
a considerable  sum,  and  could  not  be  liquidated  by 
the  annual  sales  of  the  chantry  lands,  and  of  the  mo- 
nastic possessions  still  held  by  the  crown.2  A subsidy, 
with  two  tenths  and  fifteenths,  was  granted:  but 
the  preamble,  which  attributed  the  king’s  necessities 
to  improvident  and  extravagant  expenditure  under 
the  duke  of  Somerset,  is  said  to  have  given  rise  in  the 
lower  house  to  a long  and  animated  debate.  Another 
object,  perhaps  of  equal  importance  in  the  opinion 
of  the  minister,  was  the  dissolution  of  the  bishopric 
of  Durham.  Defeated  in  his  attempt  to  procure  the 
deprivation  of  Tunstall  in  the  last  parliament  by  a 
bill  of  pains  and  penalties,  he  had  erected  a new 
court  of  lawyers  and  civilians,  with  power  to  call 
the  prelate  before  them,  to  inquire  into  all  conspi- 
racies, concealments,  contempts,  and  offences  with 
which  he  might  be  charged,  and  to  pronounce  judg- 
ment of  deprivation,  if  his  guilt  should  deserve  such 
punishment.  By  this  new,  and  as  it  was  afterwards 
held,  illegal  tribunal,  he  had  been  stripped  of  all 
his  ecclesiastical  preferments  ; and,  as  the  see  of 

1 Strype,  ii.  394. 

2 See  the  great  amount  of  these  sales  in  Strype,  ii.  362,  373,  427  ; 
App.  85 — 94.  As  an  additional  resource,  commissions  were  issued 
to  seize  for  the  treasury  all  the  plate,  jewels,  and  ornaments  belong- 
ing to  the  churches,  leaving  only  as  many  chalices  in  each  as  might 
be  necessary  for  the  administration  of  the  sacrament,  and  such  orna- 
ments as  the  commissioners  in  their  discretion  should  think  requi- 
site.— Fuller,  1.  vii.  417. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


352 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.V.  1553. 


Durham  was  now  held  to  he  vacant,  an  act  was  passed 
for  the  suppression  of  that  diocese,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  two  others  by  the  king’s  letters  patent,  of 
which  one  should  comprehend  the  county  of  North- 
umberland, the  other  that  of  Durham.  To  justify 
this  measure  was  alleged  the  enormous  extent  of 
the  former  diocese ; a hypocritical  pretext  employed 
to  turn  the  attention  of  the  members  from  the  real 
object  of  the  ministers.  Within  a month  after  the 
dissolution,  the  bishopric  was  converted  into  a county 
palatine,  annexed  for  the  present  to  the  crown,  but 
destined  to  reward  at  a convenient  opportunity  the 
services  of  the  house  of  Dudley.1 

Northumberland  was  not  only  the  most  powerful, 
his  rapacity  had  made  him  the  most  wealthy,  indivi- 
dual in  the  realm.  Though  his  former  possessions 
were  sufficiently  ample  to  satisfy  the  ordinary  avarice 
of  a subject,  he  had,  during  this  and  the  two  last 
years,  increased  them  by  the  addition  of  the  steward- 
ships of  the  east  riding  of  Yorkshire,  and  of  all  the 
royal  manors  in  the  five  northern  counties,  and  by 
grants  from  the  crown  of  Tinmouth  and  Alnwick  in 
Northumberland,  of  Bernard  Castle  in  the  bishopric 
of  Durham,  and  of  extensive  estates  in  the  three 
shires  of  Somerset,  Warwick,  and  Worcester.2  He 
was,  moreover,  warden  of  the  three  Scottish  marches, 
with  all  the  authority  ever  enjoyed  by  any  warden 
since  the  reign  of  Richard  II.  Still  he  was  aware 
that  he  held  this  pre-eminence  by  a very  precarious 
tenure.  The  life  of  the  king  was  uncertain,  in  all 
probability  was  hastening  to  its  close ; from  the  Lady 
Mary,  the  presumptive  heir,  he  had  little  reason  to 

1 Strype,  ii.  507. 

2 See  the  titles  of  these  grants  in  Strype,  ii.  499,  504,  507,  508. 


NEW  PROJECT  OF  SUCCESSION. 


353 


expect  friendship  or  protection ; and  he  foresaw  that,  chap. 
if  he  were  left  to  the  mercy  of  his  enemies,  he  must  a.d.  1553. 
resign  his  offices,  regorge  his  wealth,  and  perhaps 
atone  for  his  ambition  on  the  scaffold.  It  became  his 
policy  to  provide  against  future  danger,  by  increasing 
the  number,  and  multiplying  the  resources  of  his 
adherents.  His  brother  and  sons  were  placed  in  con- 
fidential situations  near  the  throne  ; every  office  at 
court  was  successively  intrusted  to  one  or  other  among 
his  creatures,  whose  predecessors  received  yearly  pen- 
sions as  the  reward  of  their  resignation,  and  the  price 
of  their  future  services ; and,  to  connect  with  his  own 
the  interests  of  other  powerful  families,  he  projected 
a marriage  between  his  fourth  son,  Guilford  Dudley, 
and  the  lady  Jane  Grey,  the  granddaughter  of  Mary, 
sister  to  Henry  VIII.  ; a second  between  his  own 
daughter  Catherine,  and  the  lord  Hastings,  the  eldest 
son  of  the  earl  of  Huntingdon ; and  a third  between 
the  lady  Catherine  Grey  and  Lord  Herbert,  the  son  of 
the  earl  of  Pembroke,  who  owed  both  his  title  and 
property  to  the  favour  of  Northumberland! 

Hitherto  Edward,  who  had  inherited  a portion  of 
his  father’s  obstinacy,  had  paid  little  attention  to  the 
advice  of  his  physicians.  In  the  beginning  of  May  Mays, 
an  unexpected  improvement  was  observed  in  his 
health ; he  promised  to  submit  for  the  future  to 
medical  advice ; and  the  most  flattering  hopes  were 
entertained  of  his  recovery.2  Northumberland  chose 

1 Stowe,  609.  There  remained  a third  daughter,  the  lady  Mary 
Grey,  who  in  1565  was  furtively  married  to  Martin  Keys,  the  gen- 
tleman porter.  He  was  the  largest  man,  she  the  most  diminutive 
woman,  at  court.  Elizabeth  threw  them  both  into  prison. — Strype, 

Annals  of  the  Reformation,  i/477. 

2 See  Northumberland’s  letter  to  Cecil,  dated  May  7 : Strype. 
ii.  App.  16 1 ; and  the  lady  Mary’s  to  the  king,  dated  May  16, 

Strype,  ii  424. 

VOL.  V.  2 A 

S 


354 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  this  period  to  celebrate  the  marriages  by  which  he 
a.d.  j553.  sought  to  consolidate  his  power.  Durham  House,  in 
the  Strand,  his  new  residence,  was  a scene  of  con- 
tinued festivity  and  amusement ; the  king,  unable  to 
attend  in  person,  manifested  his  approval  by  magni- 
ficent presents ; and  at  the  same  time,  as  if  it  were 
wished  to  conciliate  the  approbation  of  the  lady  Mary, 
a grant  was  made  to  her  of  the  castle  of  Hertford,  and 
of  several  manors  and  parks  in  the  counties  of  Hert- 
ford and  Essex.1 

After  a short  and  delusive  interval,  Edward  relapsed 
into  his  former  weakness.  The  symptoms  of  his  dis- 
order grew  daily  more  alarming ; and  it  became  evi- 
dent that  his  life  could  not  be  protracted  beyond  the 
June,  term  of  a few  weeks.  His  danger  urged  Northum- 
berland to  execute  a project,  which  he  had  in  all 
probability  meditated  for  some  time,  of  placing  the 
crown,  in  the  event  of  the  king’s  death,  on  the  head 
of  his  own  son.2  By  act  of  parliament,  and  the  will 
of  the  last  monarch,  the  next  heirs  were  the  ladies 
Mary  and  Elizabeth ; but,  as  the  statutes  pronouncing 
them  illegitimate  had  never  been  repealed,  it  was 
presumed  that  such  illegitimacy  might  be  successfully 
opposed  in  bar  of  their  claim.  After  their  exclusion, 
the  crown  would  of  right  descend  to  one  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  two  sisters  of  Henry  VIII. — Mar- 
garet, queen  of  Scotland,  and  Mary,  queen  of  France. 
Margaret  was  the  elder,  but  her  descendants  had  been 

1 Strype,  ii.  520,  521. 

2 With  what  view  ? Probably  to  secure  himself  and  his  colleagues 
from  the  punishment  which  he  anticipated  in  a new  reign,  “ for 
“ having  been  deceivers  of  the  whole  body  of  the  realm  by  a forged 
u instrument.”  See  his  letter  in  p.  329,  note.  Might  not  the  real 
object  of  that  letter  be  to  remind  the  councillors  of  their  danger, 
and  thus  predispose  them  to  assent  to  the  change  of  the  succession, 
which  he  contemplated  ? 


EDWARD  CONSENTS. 


355 


overlooked  in  the  will  of  the  late  king,  and  the  ani- 
mosity of  the  nation  against  Scotland  would  readily 
induce  it  to  acquiesce  in  the  exclusion  of  the  Scot- 
tish line.  There  remained  then  the  representative  of 
Mary,  the  French  queen,  who  was  Frances,  married  to 
Grey,  formerly  marquess  of  Dorset,  and  lately  created, 
in  favour  of  his  wife,  duke  of  Suffolk.  But  Frances 
had  no  ambition  to  ascend  a disputed  throne,  and 
easily  consented  to  transfer  her  right  to  her  eldest 
daughter  Jane,  the  wife  of  Northumberland’s  fourth 
son,  Guilford  Dudley. 1 Having  arranged  his  plan,  the 
duke  ventured  to  whisper  it  in  the  ear  of  the  sick 
prince;  and  recommended  it  to  his  approbation  by 
a most  powerful  appeal  to  his  religious  prejudices. 
Edward,  he  said,  by  the  extirpation  of  idolatry,  and 
the  establishment  of  a pure  system  of  faith  and  wor- 
ship, had  secured  to  himself  an  immortal  reputation 
in  this,  everlasting  happiness  in  the  next  world*  The 
lovers  of  the  gospel  had  promised  to  themselves  the 
long  enjoyment  of  so  invaluable  a blessing ; but  now  the 
dangerous  state  of  his  health  opened  to  them  a dark 
and  menacing  prospect.  He  was  acquainted  with  the 
bigotry  of  his  sister  Mary,  which  had  hitherto  set  at 
defiance  both  his  persuasion  and  his  authority.  Were 
she  to  ascend  the  throne,  she  would  seize  the  first 
opportunity  to  undo  all  that  he  had  done ; to  extin- 


Henry  VII. 


James  IV.  =*Margaret- 
of  Scotland. 


^Douglas,  Louis  XII. = Mary = Brandon, 

Earl  of  Angus.  of  France.  I Duke  of 

v . Suffolk. 


Magdalen= James  V.  = Mary  Margaret = Stuart,  Frances=Grey,  Eleanor = Clifford, 


of  France. 


of 
Lorrain. 


Earl  of 
Lennox. 


Duke  of 
Suffolk. 


| Earl  of 
Cumber- 
land. 


Mary,  Henry. 
Queen  of  Scotland. 


Charles.  Jane.  Catherine.  Mary.  Margaret. 


CHAP 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


2 A 2 


356 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


guish  the  new  light,  and  to  replunge  the  nation  into 
the  darkness  of  error  and  superstition.  Did  he  not 
shudder  at  the  very  thought  P Could  he  answer  it  to 
himself,  would  he  be  able  to  answer  it  before  God,  if 
by  his  connivance  he  should  permit,  while  he  had  it 
in  his  power  to  avert,  so  direful  an  evil?  Let  him 
make  a will  like  his  father,  let  him  pass  by  the  lady 
Mary  on  account  of  illegitimacy,  and  the  lady  Eliza- 
beth, who  laboured  under  the  same  defect,  and  then 
entail  the  crown  on  the  posterity  of  his  aunt,  the 
French  queen,  whose  present  descendants  were  dis- 
tinguished by  their  piety  and  their  attachment  to  the 
reformed  worship.1 

To  these  interested  suggestions  the  sick  prince,  over 
whose  mind  the  duke  had  long  exercised  an  unlimited 
control,  listened  with  feelings  of  approbation.  Per- 
haps he  persuaded  himself  that  he  might  justly  assume 
on  his  death-bed  those  powers  which  had  been  exer- 
cised by  his  father  Henry ; perhaps  he  deemed  it  a 
duty  to  sacrifice  the  rights  of  his  sisters  to  the  para- 
mount interests  of  his  religion.  He  was,  however, 
taught  not  to  expose  his  adversaries  to  the  resent- 
ment of  those  whom  he  was  about  to  exclude  from 
the  succession.  He  took  the  whole  responsibility  on 
himself ; and  sketched  with  his  own  pen  a rough  draft, 
by  which  the  crown  was  entailed  in  the  first  place  on 
“ the  Lady  Fraunces’s  heirs  masies,”  in  the  next  on 
“ the  Lady  Jane’s  heirs  masies,”  and  then  on  the 
heirs  male  of  her  sisters.  But  this  suited  not  the 
views  of  Northumberland.  Not  one  of  these  ladies 
had  heirs  male;  and  of  course  the  crown,  at  the 
death  of  Edward,  would  not  devolve  on  anv  one  of  that 

1 Godwin,  103. 


HESITATION  OF  THE  COUNCILLOBS.  357 

family.  A slight  correction  was  therefore  made.  The  chap. 
letter  “ s”  at  the  end  of  “ Jane’s”  was  scored  out,  the  a.d.  1553. 
words  “and  her”  were  interlined  ; by  which  change  the 
instrument  was  made  to  read  thus  : “to  the  lady  Jane 
“ and  her  heirs  masles.”  Thus  the  wife  of  Guilford 
Dudley  became  the  first  in  the  succession.  A fair  copy 
was  then  made,  and  Edward  put  to  it  his  signature, 
above,  below,  and  on  each  margin.1 

As  soon  as  these  preparations  were  completed,  Sir  June  n. 
Edward  Montague,  chief  justice  of  the  Common  Pleas, 

Sir  Thomas  Bromley,  another  justice  of  the  same 
court,  and  Sir  Bichard  Baker,  chancellor  of  the  aug- 
mentations, with  Gosnold  and  Gryffyn,  the  attorney 
and  solicitor-general,  received  a summons  to  attend 
the  council  at  Greenwich.  On  their  arrival  they  were  June  12. 
introduced  to  the  king,  who  said  that  he  had  seri- 
ously weighed  the  dangers  which  threatened  the  laws, 
and  liberties,  and  religion  of  the  country,  if  the  lady 
Mary  should  inherit  the  crown,  and  marry  a foreign 
prince ; that,  to  prevent  so  great  an  evil,  he  had 
determined  to  change  the  order  of  the  succession ; 
and  that  he  had  sent  for  them  to  draw  up  a legal 
instrument,  according  to  the  instructions,  which  he 
had  authorized  with  his  signature.  They  attempted 
to  speak ; but  he  refused  to  hear  any  objection,  and 
with  difficulty  consented  to  a short  respite,  that  they 
might  peruse  the  different  acts  of  succession,  and 
deliberate  on  the  most  eligible  means  of  accomplish- 
ing the  royal  pleasure. 

1 Strype’s  Cran.  App.  164.  The  fact  of  the  correction  was  first 
made  known  by  Dr.  Nares,  in  his  Life  of  Burghley,  i.  452.  The 
instructions  for  the  rest  of  the  will  were  written  by  secretary  Petre, 
and  dictated  by  Edward.  He  left  Mary  and  Elizabeth  annuities  of 
i,ooo/.,  and  if  they  should  marry  by  advice  of  the  council,  added 
10,000 1.  to  the  portions  left  them  by  his  father. — Strype,  ii.  431. 


358 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A-D-  iS5 3- 


June  14. 


June  15. 


Two  days  later  Montague  and  his  companions 
waited  on  the  lords  of  the  council  and  informed  them 
that  such  an  instrument  as  had  been  required  was  a 
violation  of  the  statute  of  the  thirty-fifth  of  the  late 
king,  and  would  subject  both  those  who  had  drawn, 
and  those  who  had  advised  it,  to  the  penalties  of 
treason.  At  these  words  Northumberland  entered 
from  another  room,  trembling  with  rage ; he  threat- 
ened and  called  them  traitors ; and  declared  that  he 
was  ready  to  fight  in  his  shirt  with  any  man  in  so 
just  a quarrel.  They  vrere  commanded  to  retire,  and 
the  same  evening  received  an  order  to  attend  the  next 
day,  with  the  exception  of  the  solicitor-general. 

On  their  admission  to  the  royal  presence,  Edward 
sternly  asked  why  his  command  bad  not  been  obeyed. 
The  chief  justice  replied  that  to  obey  would  have 
been  dangerous  to  them,  and  of  no  service  to  his 
grace ; that  the  succession  had  been  settled  by  statute, 
and  could  be  altered  only  by  statute ; and  that  he 
knew  of  no  other  legal  expedient  but  the  introduction 
of  a bill  for  that  purpose  into  the  next  parliament. 
The  king  replied  that  it  was  his  determination  to  have 
the  deed  of  settlement  executed  now,  and  ratified 
afterwards  in  the  parliament  summoned  to  meet  in 
September;  and  therefore  he  commanded  them  on 
their  allegiance  to  submit  to  his  pleasure.  Montague 
began  to  waver : his  conversion  was  hastened  by  the 
threats  and  reproaches  of  the  lords  of  the  council, 
who  attended  in  a body ; and,  after  a short  hesitation, 
turning  to  the  king,  he  professed  his  readiness  to  obey, 
but  requested  that  he  might  have  under  the  great 
seal,  first  a commission  to  draw  the  instrument,  and 
then  a full  pardon  for  having  drawn  it.  To  this 
Edward  assented:  Bromley  and  Baker  followed  the 


THEY  SIGN  THE  ACT  OF  SUCCESSION. 


359 


example  of  the  chief  justice ; but  the  repugnance  of 
Grosnold  was  not  subdued  till  the  following  day.1 

Among  the  privy  councillors  there  were  some  who, 
though  apprized  of  the  illegality,  and  apprehensive 
of  the  consequences  of  the  measure,  suffered  them- 
selves to  be  seduced  from  their  duty  by  the  threats 
and  promises  of  Northumberland,  and  by  their  ob- 
jection to  the  succession  of  a princess  who  would 
probably  re-establish  the  ancient  faith,  and  compel 
them  to  restore  the  property  wliich  they  had  torn 
from  the  church.  The  archbishop,  if  we  may  believe 
his  own  statement,  had  requested  a private  interview 
with  the  king,  but  he  was  accompanied  by  the  mar- 
quess of  Northampton  and  the  lord  Darcy,  in  whose 
presence  Edward  solicited  him  to  subscribe  the  new 
settlement,  expressed  a hope  that  he  would  not  refuse 
to  his  sovereign  a favour  which  had  been  granted  by 
every  other  councillor,  and  assured  him  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  decision  of  the  judges,  a king,  in  actual 
possession,  had  a power  to  limit  the  descent  of  the 
crown  after  his  decease.  Cranmer  confesses  that  he 
had  the  weakness  to  yield  against  his  own  conviction, 
“ and  so,”  says  he,  “ I granted  him  to  subscribe  his 
“ will,  and  to  follow  the  same  ; which  when  I had 
“ set  my  hand  unto,  I did  it  unfeignedly  and  without 
“ dissimulation.”2 

Northumberland,  whether  it  was  that  he  suspected 
the  fidelity  of  some  among  his  colleagues,  or  that  he 
was  unwilling  to  trust  the  success  of  his  project  to 

1 See  Montague’s  statement  in  Fuller,  1.  viii.  2 — 5. 

2 I give  his  words,  because  their  meaning  has  been  disputed.  To 
me  he  appears  to  say  that,  when  he  had  once  subscribed,  he  fol- 
lowed the  will,  that  is,  supported  it,  unfeignedly  and  without 
dissimulation.  The  object  of  his  letter  was  to  beg  pardon  for 
“consenting  and  following  the  testament.” — See  Strype,  App.  169. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553, 


360 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  the  dilatory  forms  of  office,  had  prepared  another 
AidIVIS53.  paper,  to  which  at  the  royal  command  four-and-twenty 
— of  the  counsellors  and  legal  advisers  of  the  crown 
affixed  their  signatures.  By  it  they  pledged  their 
oaths  and  honour  to  “ observe  every  article  contained 
“ in  his  majesty’s  own  device  respecting  the  succession, 
“ subscribed  with  his  majesty’s  hand  in  six  several 
“ places,  and  delivered  to  certain  judges  and  other 
“ learned  men,  that  it  might  be  written  in  full  order 
to  maintain  and  defend  it  to  the  uttermost  of  their 
power  during  their  lives;  and  if  any  man  should  here- 
after attempt  to  alter  it,  to  repute  him  an  enemy  to 
the  welfare  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  punish  him  ac- 
cording to  his  deserts.1  As  soon  as  the  official  instru- 
ment had  been  prepared,  it  was  engrossed  in  parch- 
ment, carried  to  the  Chancery,  and  authenticated 
with  the  great  seal.  It  then  received  the  signatures 
June  21.  of  the  lords  of  the  council,  and  of  several  peers,  judges, 
officers  of  the  crown,  and  others,  to  the  number  of 
one  hundred  and  one  witnesses.2 

1 The  subscribers  were  Thomas,  archbishop  of  Canterbury; 
Thomas,  bishop  of  Ely,  chancellor;  Winchester,  lord  treasurer; 
Northumberland,  great  master ; Bedford,  lord  privy  seal ; John, 
duke  of  Suffolk ; Northampton,  lord  high  chamberlain ; Shrewsbury, 
lord  president  in  the  north ; the  earl  of  Huntingdon ; the  earl  of 
Pembroke ; Clinton,  lord  admiral ; Darcy,  chamberlain  of  the 
household ; Lord  Cobham  ; Cheyne,  treasurer  of  the  household y 
Lord  Rich ; Gate,  vice-chamberlain ; Petre,  Cheek,  and  Cecil, 
principal  secretaries ; Montague,  Baker,  Gryffvn,  Lucas,  and  Gos- 
nold. — See  the  instrument  in  Strype’s  Cranmer,  App.  p.  163  ; 
Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  207.  In  defence  of  the  subscribers,  it  has  been 
supposed  that  they  might  have  been  deceived ; that  the  original 
draft  by  Edward  had  been  exhibited  to  them ; and  that  they  sub- 
scribed without  any  knowledge  of  the  correction  to  be  afterwards 
made  in  it.  But  this  is  no  more  than  an  unfounded  conjecture. 
None  of  them  subsequently  alleged  any  such  excuse ; nor  could  it 
avail  them ; for  even  the  original  draft  was  an  infringement  of  the 
statute  of  the  35th  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  of  his  alleged  will,  on  which 
the  council  founded  their  own  authority. 

2 See  the  will  in  Howell,  754.  We  have  three  accounts  of  the 


THE  KING'S  DEATH. 


361 


Northumberland’s  next  object  was  to  secure  the 
person  of  the  lady  Mary.  His  sons  bad  received  li- 
censes to  raise  companies  of  horse ; several  petty  forti- 
fications on  the  sea-coast  and  the  banks  of  the  Thames 
had  been  dismantled,  to  provide,  without  exciting 
suspicion,  a supply  of  powder  and  ammunition  for 
the  Tower ; forty  additional  warders  were  introduced 
into  that  fortress ; the  constable,  Sir  John  Gage,  was 
superseded  in  the  command  by  Sir  James  Croft,  a 
creature  of  the  duke ; and  Croft,  when  all  was  ready, 
surrendered  his  charge  to  the  lord  Clinton,  lord  high 
admiral.  Then,  to  secure  their  prey,  a letter  was 
written  by  the  council  to  the  lady  Mary,  requiring 
her  by  the  king’s  order  to  repair  immediately  to  court. 
Had  she  reached  London,  her  next  removal  would 
have  been  to  the  Tower ; but  she  received  a friendly 
hint  of  her  danger  on  the  road ; and  hastened  back 
to  her  usual  residence,  Kenninghall,  in  the  county  of 
Norfolk.1 

We  are  told  that  at  this  period  the  care  of  the  king 

transaction,  one  by  Sir  Edward  Montague,  another  by  Cranmer, 
and  a third  by  Cecil.  It  may  perhaps  detract  something  from  their 
credit,  that  they  are  interested  statements,  drawn  up  by  the  writers 
for  the  purpose  of  extenuating  their  own  guilt  in  the  estimation  of 
Queen  Mary.  Neither  is  it  easy  to  reconcile  them  with  each  other, 
or  wTith  known  facts.  Thus  Cranmer  says  that  both  the  king  and 
his  council  assured  him  that  the  judges  had  declared  in  favour  of 
the  legality  of  the  measure  (Strype’s  Cran.  App.  169)  : Montague,  on 
the  contrary,  tells  us  that  he  repeatedly,  in  his  own  name  and  that 
of  his  colleagues,  pronounced  it  illegal  in  the  presence  of  the  whole 
council,  and  consequently  of  the  archbishop. — Fuller,  1.  viii.  p.  3. 
Cecil  said  that  he  refused  to  subscribe,  when  none  of  the  others 
refused : and  that  if  he  subscribed  at  last,  it  was  not  as  an  abettor 
of  the  measure,  but  merely  as  a witness  to  the  king’s  signature. — 
Strype,  ii.  480;  iv.  347.  Yet  in  the  instrument  mentioned  in  the 
last  note,  his  name  occurs  in  its  proper  place,  not  as  of  a witness, 
but  as  of  one  who  takes  his  oath,  and  promises  on  his  honour  to 
maintain  it.  Cranmer  in  his  statement  takes  credit  to  himself  for 
being  the  last  who  was  persuaded  to  subscribe. 

1 Strype,  ii.  521.  Hayward,  327. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


June  22. 


June  30. 


362 


EDWARD  VI. 


chap,  was  intrusted  to  a female  empiric,  whose  charms  or 
a.d.  1553-  medicines,  instead  of  alleviating,  aggravated  his  suffer- 
ings;  and  that  his  physicians,  when  they  were  recalled, 
pronounced  him  to  he  at  the  point  of  death.1  The 
report  originated  probably  with  those  who  afterwards 
accused  Northumberland  of  having  taken  the  life  of 
his  sovereign.  However  that  may  be,  on  the  first  of 
July  6.  July  the  duke  pretended  to  entertain  hopes  of  his 
recovery : on  the  sixth  of  the  same  month  the  king 
expired  in  the  evening.  The  event  had  long  been  ex- 
pected by  the  nation,  and  the  vengeance  of  the  council 
had  already  visited  with  stripes  and  imprisonment 
several  offenders,  both  male  and  female,  who  had 
prematurely  announced  the  intelligence.2 

It  would  be  idle  to  delineate  the  character  of  a 
prince  who  lived  not  till  his  passions  could  develop 
themselves,  or  his  faculties  acquire  maturity.3  His 
education,  like  that  of  his  two  sisters,  began  at  a 
very  early  age.  In  abilities  he  was  equal,  perhaps 

1 Hayward,  327.  Heylin,  139.  Rosso,  10. 

2 See  several  instances  from  the  Council  Book  in  Strype,  ii.  428. 
On  the  first  of  July  they  wrote  to  the  foreign  ambassadors,  “ that 
“his  majesty  was  alive,  whatsoever  evil  men  did  write  or  spread 
“ abroad : and,  as  they  trusted  and  wished,  his  estate  and  toward- 
“ ness  of  recovery  out  of  his  sickness  should  shortly  appear  to  the 
“ comfort  of  all  good  men.” — Strype,  ii.  429. 

3 One  part  of  his  education  was  likely  to  have  strengthened  his 
passions.  No  one  was  permitted  to  address  him,  not  even  his 
sisters,  without  kneeling  to  him.  “ I have  seen,”  says  Ubaldini, 
“ the  princess  Elizabeth  drop  on  one  knee  five  times  before  her 
“ brother,  before  she  took  her  place.”  At  dinner,  if  either  of  his 
sisters  were  permitted  to  eat  with  him,  she  sat  on  a stool  and 
cushion,  at  a distance,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  royal  dais. — Ubaldini, 
apud  Von  Raumer,  ii.  70.  Even  the  lords  and  gentlemen  who 
brought  in  the  dishes  before  dinner,  were  bareheaded,  and  knelt 
down  before  they  placed  them  on  the  table.  This  custom  shocked 
the  French  ambassador  and  his  suite ; for  in  France  the  office  was 
confined  to  pages,  who  bowed  only,  and  did  not  kneel. — See  the 
Memoires  de  Vieilleville,  Mem.  xxviii.  319. 


HIS  ABILITIES. 


363 


superior,  to  most  boys  of  his  years ; and  his  industry 
and  improvement  amply  repaid  the  solicitude  of  his 
tutors.  But  the  extravagant  praise  which  has  been 
lavished  on  him  by  his  panegyrists  and  admirers 
must  be  received  with  some  degree  of  caution.  In 
the  French  and  Latin  letters,  to  which  they  appeal, 
it  is  difficult  to  separate  the  compositions  of  the  pupil 
from  the  corrections  of  the  master;1  and  since,  to 
raise  his  reputation,  deceptions  are  known  to  have 
been  employed  on  some  occasions,  it  may  be  justifi- 
able to  suspect  that  they  were  practised  on  others. 
The  boy  of  twelve  or  fourteen  years  was  accustomed 
to  pronounce  his  opinion  in  the  council  with  all  the 
gravity  of  a hoary  statesman.  But  he  had  been  pre- 
viously informed  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed ; his 
preceptors  had  supplied  him  with  short  notes,  which 
he  committed  to  memory;  and,  while  he  delivered 
their  sentiments  as  his  own,  the  lords,  whether  they 
were  aware  or  not  of  the  artifice,  admired  and  ap- 
plauded the  precocious  wisdom  with  which  heaven 
had  gifted  their  sovereign.2 

Edward’s  religious  belief  could  not  have  been  the 
result  of  his  own  judgment.  He  was  compelled  to 
take  it  on  trust  from  those  about  him,  who  moulded 

1 These  letters  may  be  seen  in  Fuller,  1.  vii.  p.  423 ; Hearne’s 
Titus  Livius,  115  ; and  Strype,  ii.  App.  162.  Perhaps  the  character 
given  of  him  by  Barbaro,  the  Venetian  ambassador,  in  1551,  ap- 
proaches nearest  to  the  truth.  “ He  is  of  good  disposition,  and 
“ fills  the  country  with  the  best  expectations,  because  he  is  handsome, 
“ graceful,  of  proper  size,  shows  an  inclination  to  generosity,  and 
“ begins  to  wish  to  understand  what  is  going  on ; and  in  the  exercise 
“ of  the  mind,  and  the  study  of  languages,  appears  to  excel  his  com- 
“ panions.  He  is  14  years  of  age.  This  is  what  I am  able  to  state 
“ about  him.” — MS.  at  Greystoke  Castle. 

2 See  Strype,  ii.  104.  From  a document  in  Eaumer,  it  appears 
that  Northumberland  was  also  accustomed  to  prepare  the  king  for 
the  discussion  of  subjects  beforehand  (iii.  79). 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


3G4 


EDWARD  VI. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


his  infant  mind  to  their  own  pleasure,  and  infused 
into  it  their  own  opinions  or  prejudices.  From  them 
he  derived  a strong  sense  of  piety,  and  a habit  of 
daily  devotion,  a warm  attachment  to  the  new,  and 
a violent  antipathy  to  the  ancient  doctrines.  He 
believed  it  to  be  the  first  of  his  duties  to  extirpate 
what  he  had  been  taught  to  deem  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship of  his  fathers ; and  with  his  last  breath  he  wafted 
a prayer  to  heaven  for  the  preservation  of  his  subjects 
from  the  infection  of  “papistry.”1  Yet  it  may  be  a 
question  whether  his  early  death  has  not  proved  a 
benefit  to  the  church  of  England  as  it  is  at  present 
established.  His  sentiments,  like  those  of  his  in- 
structors, were  tinged  with  Calvinism ; attempts  were 
made  to  persuade  him  that  episcopacy  was  an  expen- 
sive and  unnecessary  institution  ; and  the  courtiers, 
whose  appetite  for  church  property  had  been  whetted 
rather  than  satisfied  by  former  spoliations,  looked 
impatiently  towards  the  entire  suppression  of  the 
bishoprics  and  chapters.2  Of  the  possessions  belong- 

1 Foxe,  ii.  130. 

2 On  this  subject  the  reader  will  be  amused  with  the  disinterested 
advice  of  Hobey.  In  a letter  of  the  19th  of  January,  1549,  he 
tells  the  protector,  that  the  foreign  Protestants  “ have  good  hopes, 
“ and  pray  earnestly  therefore,  that  the  king’s  majesty  will  appoint 
u unto  the  good  bishops  an  honest  and  competent  living,  sufficient 
“ for  their  maintenance,  taking  from  them  the  rest  of  their  worldly 
“ possessions  and  dignities,  and  thereby  avoid  the  vain  glory  that 
“ lettetli  them  truly  and  sincerely  to  do  their  duty.”  From  the 
bishops  he  proceeds  to  the  chapters.  He  had  been  told  that  1,500 
horsemen  had  mustered  at  Brussels  to  meet  the  prince  of  “ Spain  : 
“ which,”  he  adds,  “ when  I heard,  remembering  what  great  ser- 
“ vice  such  a number  of  chosen  men  were  able  to  do,  specially  in 
“ our  country,  wherein  is  so  much  lack  of  good  horsemen,  it  caused 
“ me  to  declare,  under  your  grace’s  correction,  what  I thought ; 
“ earnestly  to  wish  with  all  my  heart  that,  standing  with  the  king’s 
“ majesty’s  pleasure  and  your  prudence,  all  the  prebends  within 
“ England  were  converted  to  the  like  use,  for  the  defence  of  our 
“ country,  and  the  maintenance  of  honest  poor  gentlemen.” — Apud 
Strype,  ii.  88. 


STATE  OF  THE  NATION. 


365 


ing  to  these  establishments,  one-half  had  already 
been  seized  by  the  royal  favourites : in  the  course  of 
a few  years  their  rapacity  would  have  devoured  the 
remainder.1 

The  governors  and  counsellors  of  the  young  king 
were  so  occupied  with  plans  of  personal  aggrandize- 
ment, and  the  introduction  of  religious  reform,  that 
they  could  pay  but  little  attention  to  the  great  objects 
of  national  polity.  Under  their  care  or  negligence 
England  was  compelled  to  descend  from  the  pre- 
eminence which  she  previously  held  among  the  nations 
of  Europe  ; and  her  degradation  was  consummated  at 
the  conferences  for  the  restoration  of  Boulogne,  by 
the  supercilious  conduct  of  the  French,  and  the  tame 
acquiescence  of  the  English  ministers.  For  the  ad- 
vantage of  commerce,  the  exclusive  privileges  enjoyed 
by  the  corporation  of  the  Stilyard  were  abolished ; 
and  a little  before  the  king’s  death  an  expedition  was 
fitted  out  to  discover  a north-east  passage  to  China 
and  India.  With  this  view  a joint-stock  company 
was  formed,  under  the  direction  of  Sebastian  Cabote, 
son  of  Cabote  the  celebrated  navigator:  three  stout 
ships  were  built  at  the  cost  of  six  thousand  pounds ; 
and  Sir  Hugh  Willoughby,  a brave  and  experienced 
soldier,  but  probably  no  sailor,  was  intrusted  with 
the  chief  command.  Off  the.  northern  extremity  of 
Norway,  this  little  fleet  was  dispersed  by  a violent 
storm.  Challoner,  the  second  in  command,  continued 

1 By  the  extortion  of  grants  and  exchanges  the  incomes  of  the 
richer  bishoprics  were  reduced  about  two-thirds,  those  of  the  poorer 
about  one-half ; and  on  the  other  hand  eighteen  free  schools  were 
founded,  the  endowments  of  which  amounted  to  360^.  per  annum. 
— Strype,  ii.  535.  Rec.  159.  I may  add,  that  in  a patent  for  the 
exchange  of  lands  to  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  are  mentioned 
not  only  the  lands,  but  also  nativi,  et  nativas,  et  villani  cum  eorum 
sequelis. — Id.  554.  So  long  did  villenage  continue  in  England. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


May  10. 


CHAP. 

IV. 

A.D.  1553. 


366  EDWARD  VI. 

his  course  alone,  keeping  in  sight  of  the  land,  till  he 
entered  an  immense  estuary,  now  called  the  White 
Sea,  and  found  an  asylum  for  the  winter  in  the  port 
of  Archangel ; whence  he  traversed  Russia  to  Moscow, 
and,  having  been  favourably  received  by  the  emperor 
IwanWasilejevitch,  returned  to  Archangel,  and  thence 
to  England,  with  a letter  from  the  Czar  to  the  king 
of  England.  Of  Challoner’s  former  companions  we 
know  nothing  more  than  that  they  reached  the  shore 
of  Nova  Zembla,  and  afterwards  landed  somewhere  on 
the  coast  of  Russian  Lapland,  where  they  afterwards 
perished. 

Within  the  realm  poverty  and  discontent  generally 
prevailed.  The  extension  of  inclosures,  and  the  new 
practice  of  letting  lands  at  rack  rents,  had  driven 
from  their  homes  numerous  families,  whose  fathers 
had  occupied  the  same  farms  for  several  generations ; 
and  the  increasing  multitudes  of  the  poor  began  to 
resort  to  the  more  populous  towns  in  search  of  that 
relief  which  had  been  formerly  distributed  at  the 
gates  of  the  monasteries.1  Nor  were  the  national 
morals  improved,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  portraits 
drawn  by  the  most  eminent  of  the  reformed  preachers. 
They  assert  that  the  sufferings  of  the  indigent  were 
viewed  with  indifference  by  the  hard-heartedness  of 
the  rich ; that  in  the  pursuit  of  gain  the  most  bare- 
faced frauds  were  avowed  and  justified;  that  robbers 
and  murderers  escaped  punishment  by  the  partiality 
of  juries  and  the  corruption  of  judges ; that  church 
livings  were  given  to  laymen,  or  converted  to  the  use 
of  the  patrons;  that  marriages  were  repeatedly  dis- 

1 Thus  Lever  exclaims : “0  merciful  Lord ! what  a number  of 
“ poor,  feeble,  halt,  blind,  lame,  sickly,  yea,  with  idle  vagabonds 
“ and  dissembling  caitiffs  mixed  among  them,  lie  and  creep,  begging 
“ in  the  miry  streets  of  London  and  Westminster.” — Strype,  ii.  449. 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  REFORMATION.  367 

solved  by  private  authority ; and  that  the  haunts  of 
prostitution  were  multiplied  beyond  measure.1  How 
far  credit  should  be  given  to  such  representations, 
may  perhaps  be  doubtful.  Declamations  from  the 
pulpit  are  not  the  best  historical  evidence.  Much  in 
them  must  be  attributed  to  the  exaggeration  of  zeal, 
much  to  the  affectation  of  eloquence.  Still,  when 
these  deductions  have  been  made,  when  the  invectives 
of  Knox  and  Lever,  of  Grilpin  and  Latimer,  have 
been  reduced  by  the  standard  of  reason  and  experi- 
ence, enough  will  remain  to  justify  the  conclusion, 
that  the  change  of  religious  polity,  by  removing  many 
of  the  former  restraints  upon  vice,  and  enervating  the 
authority  of  the  spiritual  courts,  had  given  a bolder 
front  to  licentiousness,  and  opened  a wider  scope  to 
the  indulgence  of  criminal  passion. 

1 The  industry  of  Strype  has  collected  several  passages  on  these 
subjects  from  the  old  preachers  (369,  438 — 450). 


CHAP 

IV. 

A.D.  1553 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 


368 


CHAPTER  Y. 

MARY. 


CONTEMPORARY  PRINCES. 


Emp.  of  Ger.  I Q.  of  Scotland.  I K.  of  France. 
Charles  V.  ...1558.  Mary.  Henry  II. 

Ferdinand.  _ 


K.  of  Spain. 
Chai’les  V.  ...1550 
Philip  II. 


Popes. 

Julius  III.,  1555.  Marcellus  II.,  1555.  Paul  IY. 


LADY  JANE  GREY  PROCLAIMED  QUEEN THE  LADY  MARY  IS  ACKNOW- 
LEDGED  HER  QUESTIONS  TO  THE  EMPEROR  CHARLES EXECU- 
TION OF  NORTHUMBERLAND  MISCONDUCT  OF  COURTENAY  

QUEEN  SEEKS  TO  RESTORE  THE  ANCIENT  SERVICE ELIZABETH 

CONFORMS  CRANMER  OPPOSES  PARLIAMENT INTRIGUES  OF 

NOAILLES INSURRECTION  OF  WYAT FAILURE  AND  PUNISHMENT 

OF  THE  CONSPIRATORS ELIZABETH  AND  COURTENAY  IN  DISGRACE 

TREATY  OF  MARRIAGE  BETWEEN  MARY  AND  PHILIP — RECON- 
CILIATION WITH  ROME. 

The  declining  health  of  Edward  had  attracted  the 
notice  of  the  neighbouring  courts : to  the  two  rival 
sovereigns,  Charles  Y.  of  Germany,  and  Henry  IT.  of 
France,  it  offered  a new  subject  of  political  intrigue. 
The  presumptive  heir  to  the  sick  king  was  his  sister 
Mary,  a princess  who,  ever  since  the  death  of  her 
father,  had  been  guided  by  the  advice,  and  under 
persecution  had  been  protected  by  the  remonstrances, 
of  the  emperor.  Gratitude,  as  well  as  consanguinity, 
must  attach  her  to  the  interests  of  her  benefactor  and 
relative ; probably  she  would,  in  the  event  of  her  sue- 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  COUNCIL. 


369 


cession,  throw  the  power  of  England  into  the  scale  chap. 
against  the  pretensions  of  France : it  was  even  pos-  a.d.  1553. 
sible  that  partiality  to  the  father  might  induce  her  to 
accept  the  son  for  her  husband.  On  these  accounts 
both  princes  looked  forward  with  considerable  soli- 
citude to  the  approaching  death  of  Edward,  and  to 
the  result  of  the  plot  contrived  by  the  ambition  of 
Northumberland. 

Charles  had  despatched  from  Brussels  Mont- 
morency, Marnix,  and  Benard,  as  ambassadors  extra-  June  23. 
ordinary  to  the  English  court.  They  came  under  the 
pretence  of  visiting  the  infirm  monarch ; but  the  real 
object  was  to  watch  the  proceedings  of  the  council,  to 
study  the  resources  of  the  different  parties,  to  make 
friends  for  the  lady  Mary,  and,  as  far  as  prudence 
would  allow,  to  promote  her  succession  to  the 
throne.1 

The  same  reasons  which  induced  the  emperor  to 
favour,  urged  the  king  of  France  to  oppose,  the 
interest  of  Mary.  Aware  of  the  design  of  his  rival, 

Henry  despatched  to  London  the  bishop  of  Orleans, 
and  the  Chevalier  de  Grye,  with  instructions  to  coun- 
teract the  attempts  of  the  imperial  envoys ; but  the 
slow  progress  of  these  ministers  was  anticipated  by 
the  industry  and  address  of  Noailles,  the  resident 
ambassador,  who,  though  he  would  not  commit  his 
sovereign  by  too  explicit  an  avowal  of  his  sentiments, 
readily  offered  to  the  council  the  aid  of  France,  if 
foreigners  should  attempt  to  disturb  the  tranquillity 
of  the  realm.  The  hint  was  sufficient.  Northumber- 

1 From  their  instructions  in  the  collection  of  the  papers  of  the 
ambassador  Renard,  in  the  library  of  Besan^on,  tom.  iii.  fol.  1,  it 
appears  that  they  were  sent  u devers  le  R.  d’Angleterre,  notre 
“ cousine  la  princesse,  le  due  de  Northumberland,  et  seigneurs  du 
“ conseil.” 

2 B 


1 
* 


VOL.  V. 


2 & 


370 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  6. 


July  8. 


land  saw  that  he  had  nothing  to  fear,  hut  every  thing 
to  hope,  from  the  policy  of  the  French  monarch.1 

If  was  on  the  evening  of  the  sixth  of  July  that 
Edward  expired  at  Greenwich.  With  the  view  of 
concealing  his  death  for  some  days  from  the  know- 
ledge of  the  public,2  the  guards  had  been  previously 
doubled  in  the  palace,  and  all  communication  inter- 
cepted between  his  chamber  and  the  other  apart- 
ments. Yet  that  very  night,  while  the  lords  sat  in 
deliberation,  the  secret  was  communicated  to  Mary 
by  a note,  probably  from  the  earl  of  Arundel,  un- 
folding the  design  of  the  conspirators.  She  was  then 
at  Hoddesdon,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  London,  and, 
had  she  hesitated,  would  by  the  next  morning  have 
been  a prisoner  in  the  Tower.  Without  losing  a 
moment  she  mounted  her  horse,  and  rode  with 
the  servants  of  her  household  to  Kenninghall,  in 
Norfolk.3 

The  council  broke  up  after  midnight ; and  Clinton, 
the  lord  admiral,  took  possession  of  the  Tower,  with 
the  royal  treasures,  the  munitions  of  war,  and  the  pri- 
soners of  state.  The  three  next  days  were  employed 
in  making  such  previous  arrangements  as  were  thought 
necessary  for  the  success  of  the  enterprise.  While 
the  death  of  Edward  was  yet  unknown,  the  officers  of 
the  guards  and  of  the  household,  the  lord  mayor,  six 
aldermen,  and  twelve  of  the  principal  citizens,  were 
summoned  before  the  council.  All  were  informed  of 
the  recent  settlement  of  the  crown,  and  required  to 
take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  new  sovereign;  the 
latter  were  dismissed  with  an  injunction  not  to  betray 

1 Ambassad.  de  Mess,  de  Noailles,  ii.  45,  50,  53. 

2 See  Alford’s  letter  to  Cecil,  Strype,  iv.  349. 

s Noailles,  56. 


LADY  JANE  GREY. 


371 


the  secret,  and  to  watch  over  the  tranquillity  of  the  chap, 
.city.  On  the  fourth  morning  it  was  determined  to  a.d.  1553. 
publish  the  important  intelligence ; and  the  chief  of 
the  lords,  attended  by  a numerous  escort,  rode  to 
Sion  House  to  announce  to  the  lady  Jane  her  suc- 
cession to  the  throne  of  her  royal  cousin. 

Jane  has  been  described  to  us  as  a young  woman 
of  gentle  manners,  and  superior  talents,  addicted  to 
the  study  of  the  scriptures  and  the  classics,  but  fonder 
of  dress  than  suited  the  austere  notions  of  the  re- 
formed preachers.  Of  the  designs  of  the  duke  of 
Northumberland  in  her  favour,  and  of  the  arts  by 
which  he  had  deceived  the  simplicity  of  Edward, 
she  knew  nothing ; nor  had  she  suffered  the  dark  and 
mysterious  predictions  of  the  duchess  to  make  any 
impression  on  her  mind.  Her  love  of  privacy  had 
induced  her  to  solicit,  what  in  the  uncertain  state  of 
the  king’s  health  was  readily  granted,  permission  to 
leave  London,  and  to  spend  a few  days  at  Chelsea ; 
she  was  indulging  herself  in  this  retirement,  when 
she  received  by  the  lady  Sydney,  her  husband’s  sister,  July  9. 
an  order  from  the  council  to  return  immediately  to 
Sion  House,  and  to  await  there  the  commands  of  the 
king.  She  obeyed ; and  the  next  morning  was  visited  July  k>. 
by  the  duke  of  Northumberland,  the  marquess  of 
Northampton,  and  the  earls  of  Arundel,  Huntingdon, 
and  Pembroke.  At  first,  the  conversation  turned  on 
indifferent  subjects,  but  there  was  in  their  manner 
an  air  of  respect,  which  awakened  some  uneasiness  in 
her  mind,  and  seemed  to  explain  the  hints  already 
given  to  her  by  her  mother-in-law.  Soon  afterwards 
that  lady  entered,  accompanied  by  the  duchess  of 
Suffolk  and  the  marchioness  of  Northampton  ; and 
the  duke,  addressing  the  lady  Jane,  informed  her  that 

2 B 2 


372 


MARY. 


ohap.  the  king  her  cousin  was  dead;  that  before  he  ex- 
a.d.  1553.  pired,  he  had  prayed  to  God  to  preserve  the  realm 
from  the  infection  of  papistry,  and  the  misrule  of  his 
sisters  Mary  and  Elizabeth ; that,  on  account  of  their 
being  bastards,  and  by  act  of  parliament  incapable  of 
the  succession,  he  had  resolved  to  pass  them  by,  and 
to  leave  the  crown  in  the  right  line  ; and  that  he  had 
therefore  commanded  the  council  to  proclaim  her,  the 
lady  Jane,  his  lawful  heir,  and  in  default  of  her  and 
her  issue,  her  two  sisters,  Catherine  and  Mary.  At 
the  words  the  lords  fell  on  their  knees,  declared  that 
they  took  her  for  their  sovereign,  and  swore  that  they 
were  ready  to  shed  their  blood  in  support  of  her 
right.  The  reader  may  easily  conceive  the  agitation 
of  spirits  which  a communication  so  important  and 
unlooked  for  was  likely  to  create  in  a young  woman 
of  timid  habits  and  delicate  health.  She  trembled, 
uttered  a shriek,  and  sank  to  the  ground.  On  her 
recovery  she  observed  to  those  around  her,  that  she 
seemed  to  herself  a very  unfit  person  to  be  a queen ; 
but  that,  if  the  right  were  hers,  she  trusted  God 
would  give  her  strength  to  wield  the  sceptre  to  his 
honour  and  the  benefit  of  the  nation. 

Such  is  the  account  of  this  transaction  given,  about 
a month  afterwards,  by  Jane  herself,  in  a letter  from 
the  Tower  to  Queen  Mary.1  The  feelings  which  she 

1 “ Le  quali  cose,  tosto  clie  con  infinito  dolore  dell’  animo  mio 
“ hebbi  intese,  quanto  io  restasse  fuor  di  me  stordita,  e sbattuta,  ne 
“ lascero  testimoniare  a quei  Signori,  i quali  si  trovarono  presenti, 
“ che  soppraggiunta  da  subita  e non  aspettata  doglia,  mi  videro  in 
“ terra  cadere,  molto  dolorosamente  piangendo  : E dichiarando  poi 
11  loro  1’  insofficienza  mia,  forte  mi  rammaricai  della  morte  d’  un  si 
“ nobile  principe,  e insieme  mi  risolvi  a Dio,  humilmente  pregandolo, 
“ e supplicandolo,  che  se  quello  che  m’era  dato,  era  dirittamente  e 
“ legittamamente  mio,  S.D.M.  mi  donasse  tanta  grazia  e spirito, 
11  ch’io  il  potesse  governare,  a gloria  sua,  e servigio,  e utile  di  questo 
“ reame-.”  From  her  letter  or  confession  to  Mary  in  August  soon 


IS  PROCLAIMED  QUEEN. 


373 


describes  are  such  as  we  might  expect ; surprise  at 
the  annunciation,  grief  for  the  death  of  her  royal 
cousin,  and  regret  to  quit  a station  in  which  she  had 
been  happy.  But  modern  writers  have  attributed  to 
her  much  of  which  she  seems  to  have  been  ignorant 
herself.  The  beautiful  language  which  they  put  into 
her  mouth,  her  forcible  reasoning  in  favour  of  the 
claim  of  Mary,  her  philosophic  contempt  of  the  splen- 
dour of  royalty,  her  refusal  to  accept  a crown  which 
was  not  her  right,  and  her  reluctant  submission  to 
the  commands  of  her  parents,  must  be  considered  as 
the  fictions  of  historians,  who,  in  their  zeal  to  exalt 
the  character  of  the  heroine,  seem  to  have  forgotten 
that  she  was  only  sixteen  years  of  age. 

About  three  in  the  afternoon,  the  young  queen  was 
conducted  by  water  to  the  Tower,  the  usual  residence 
of  our  kings  preparatory  to  their  coronation.  She 
made  her  entry  in  state.  Her  train  was  borne  by  her 
mother,  the  duchess  of  Suffolk ; the  lord  treasurer 
presented  her  with  the  crown ; and  her  relations 
saluted  her  on  their  knees.  At  six  the  same  evening, 
the  heralds  proclaimed  the  death  of  Edward  and  the 
succession  of  Jane  ; and  a printed  instrument  with  her 
signature  was  circulated,  to  acquaint  the  people  with 
the  grounds  of  her  claim.  It  alleged,  i . That  though 
the  succession,  by  the  thirty-fifth  of  Henry  VIII., 
stood  limited  to  the  ladies  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  yet 
neither  of  them  could  take  any  thing  under  that 
act,  because,  by  a previous  statute  of  the  twenty- 

after  her  committal  to  the  Tower.  The  original  in  English  has  pro- 
bably perished ; but  we  have  two  different  translations  of  it  in 
Italian,  one  by  Rosso  in  his  “ Successi  d’  Inghilterra  dopo  la  morte 
“ di  Odoardo  sesto,”  published  in  Ferrara  as  early  as  1560;  and 
another  by  Pollini  in  his  Historia  Eccl.  della  Rivoluzion  d’  Inghil- 
terra, in  Roma,  1594. 


CHAR 

V. 

A.D.  1553- 


374 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


eighth  of  the  same  reign,  which  still  remained  in 
force,  both  daughters  had  been  pronounced  bastards, 
and  incapable  of  inheriting  the  crown  ; 2.  That  even, 
had  they  been  born  in  lawful  wedlock,  they  could 
have  no  claim  to  the  succession  after  Edward,  because 
being  his  sisters  only  by  the  half-blood,  they  could 
not  inherit  from  him  according  to  the  ancient  laws 
and  customs  of  the  realm;  3.  That  the  fact  of  their 
being  single  women  ought  to  be  a bar  to  their  claim, 
as  by  their  subsequent  marriages  they  might  place 
the  sovereign  power  in  the  hands  of  a foreign  despot, 
who  would  be  able  to  subvert  the  liberties  of  the 
people,  and  to  restore  the  jurisdiction  ottbe  bishop 
of  Rome ; 4.  That  these  considerations  had  moved 
the  late  king  to  limit,  by  his  letters  patent,  the  in- 
heritance of  the  crown  in  the  first  place  to  the  lawful 
issue  of  the  duchess  of  Suffolk,1  her  male  issue,  if  any 
were  born  to  her  during  his  life,  otherwise  to  her 
daughters  and  their  issue  in  succession,  and  after 
them  to  the  daughter  of  the  late  countess  of  Cum- 
berland, sister  to  the  said  duchess,  and  to  her  issue, 
inasmuch  as  the  said  ladies  were  nigh  to  him  of 
blood,  and  “ naturally  born  within  the  realm  5.  And 
that  therefore  the  lady  Jane,  the  eldest  daughter  of 
the  duchess  of  Suffolk,  had  now  taken  upon  herself, 
as  belonging  to  her  of  right,  the  government  of  the 
kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  of  all  their 


1 As  the  duchess  of  Suffolk  was  still  living,  how  happened  it  that 
the  king  should  overlook  her,  to  leave  the  crown  to  her  daughter  ? 
It  evidently  entered  into  the  plan  of  Northumberland  to  suppress 
her  claims,  and  probably  his  argument  to  Edward  was  that  she  had 
been  omitted  in  his  father’s  will,  though  her  issue  had  been  ex- 
pressly named.  It  was  differently  with  respect  to  the  elder  branch, 
the  descendants  of  the  queen  of  Scots.  They  had  been  omitted 
altogether. 


LETTER  FROM  MARY. 


375 


dependencies.1  To  the  arguments  contained  in  this 
laboured  proclamation  the  people  listened  in  ominous 
silence.  They  had  so  long  considered  Mary  the  pre- 
sumptive heir,  that  they  did  not  comprehend  how 
her  claim  could  he  defeated  by  any  pretensions  of  a 
daughter  of  the  house  of  Suffolk.  Not  a single  voice 
was  heard  in  approbation ; a vintner’s  boy  had  the 
temerity  to  express  his  dissent,  and  the  next  day  paid 
the  forfeit  of  his  folly  with  the  loss  of  his  ears.2 

The  following  morning  arrived  .at  the  Tower  a 
messenger  from  Mary,  the  bearer  of  a letter  to  the 
lords,  in  which,  assuming  the  style  and  tone  of  their 
sovereign,,  she  upbraided  them  with  their  neglect  to 
inform  her  of  the  death  of  her  brother,  hinted  her 
knowledge  of  their  disloyal  intention  to  oppose  her 
right,  and  commanded  them,  as  they  hoped  for  favour, 
to  proclaim  her  accession  immediately  in  the  metro- 
polis, and  as  soon  as  possible,  in  all  other  parts  of  the 
kingdom.3 

This  communication  caused  no  change  in  their 

1 Noailles,  ii.  62.  Burnet,  ii.  Ree.  239.  Somer’s  Tracts,  i.  174. 
The  heads  of  this  instrument  are  taken  out  of  the  will  of  Edward  VI., 
which  is  published  in  Howell’s  State  Trials,  i.  754 ; but  the  line 
respecting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  an  interpola- 
tion. The  words,  “ born  within  the  realm”  were  added  to  exclude 
the  Scottish  line. 

2 The  vintner’s  boy  was  nailed  to  the  pillory  by  the  ears,  both  of 
which  were  amputated  before  he  could  be  released. — Holins.  1065. 

3 The  following  is  her  proclamation  : — 

“ Marie,  the  Quene. 

“ Knowe  ye,  all  the  good  subjects  of  this  realme,  that  yor  most 
11  noble  prince,  yor  soveraine  Lord  and  King,  Edwarde  the  vjth  is 
u upon  thursday  last  being  the  vjth  of  July  dep’ted  this  worlde  to 
u Godes  mercie.  And  that  now  the  most  excellent  princes,  his  sister 
11  Marie,  by  the  grace  of  God  ys  Quene  of  E.  and  Y.  and  verie  owner 
11  of  the  crowne,  government  and  tytle  of  E.  and  Y.  and  all  things 
“ thereunto  belonging,  to  Godes  glory,  the  honor  of  the  royalme  of 
11  England,  and  all  yor  comfortes.  And  her  Highness  ys  not  fled 
41  thys  royalme,  ne  intendethe  to  do,  as  ys  most  untruly  surmised.” 
— Gage’s  Hengrave,  143. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  ir. 


376 


MARY. 


chap,  counsels,  awakened  no  apprehension  in  their  minds. 
a.d.  1553.  Mary  was  a single  and  defenceless  female,  unpre- 
pared  to  vindicate  her  right,  without  money,  and 
without  followers.  They  had  taken  every  precaution 
to  insure  success.  The  exercise  of  the  royal  authority 
was  in  their  hands  ; the  royal  treasures  were  at  their 
disposal ; the  guards  had  sworn  obedience ; a fleet  of 
twenty'  armed  vessels  lay  in  the  river ; and  a body  of 
troops  had  been  assembled  in  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
ready  at  any  moment  to  execute  their  orders.  De- 
pending on  their  own  resources,  contrasted  with  the 
July  12.  apparent  helplessness  of  their  adversary,  they  affected 
to  dread  her  flight  more  than  her  resistance,  and  re- 
turned an  answer  under  the  signatures  of  the  arch- 
bishop, the  chancellor,  and  twenty-one  councillors, 
requiring  her  to  abandon  her  false  claim,  and  to  submit 
as  a dutiful  subject  to  her  lawful  and  undoubted  sove- 
reign.1 

In  a few  hours  the  illusion  vanished.  The  mass  of 
the  people  knew  little  of  the  lady  Jane,  but  all  had 
heard  of  the  ambition  of  Northumberland.  His  real 
object,  it  was  said,  was  now  unmasked.  To  deprive 
the  late  king  of  his  nearest  relatives  and  protectors, 
he  had  persuaded  Somerset  to  take  the  life  of  the 
lord  admiral,  and  Edward  to  take  that  of  Somerset. 
The  royal  youth  was  the  next  victim.  He  had  been 

1 Foxe,  iii.  12.  Strype,  iii.  Rec.  3.  The  emperor  was  equally 
persuaded  of  her  inability  to  contend  with  the  council,  and  on  the 
28th  of  June  advised  her  to  offer  them  a pardon  for  all  past  offences, 
and  to  consent,  if  they  required  it,  that  they  should  hold  the  same 
offices  under  her,  and  that  no  change  should  be  made  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  religion. — Renard’s  MSS.  folio  6.  But  when  he  learned 
| that  she  meant  to  fight  for  her  right,  he  exhorted  her  to  persevere  : 

puisqu’elle  s’y  est  mise  si  avant,  qu’elle  perde  la  crainte,  evite  de  la 
donner  a ceux  qui  sont  de  son  cote,  et  qu’elle  passe  tout  outre. — 
Ibid.  fol.  22. 


THE  ADHERENTS  OF  MARY. 


3 77 


removed  by  poison  to  make  room  for  the  lady  Jane,1  chap. 
who,  in  her  turn,  would  be  compelled  to  yield  the  a.d.  1553. 
crown  to  Northumberland  himself.  These  reports 
were  circulated  and  believed,  and  the  public  voice, 
wherever  it  might  be  expressed  with  impunity,  was 
unanimous  in  favour  of  Mary.  The  very  day  on 
which  the  answer  to  her  letter  had  been  despatched 
brought  the  alarming  intelligence  that  she  was  already 
joined  by  the  earls  of  Bath  and  Sussex,2  and  by  the 
eldest  sons  of  the  lords  Wharton  and  Mordaunt ; that 
the  gentlemen  of  the  neighbouring  counties  were 
hastening  to  her  aid  with  their  tenants  and  depen- 
dants ; and  that  in  a short  time  a numerous  and  for- 
midable army  would  be  embattled  under  her  banners.3 
Northumberland  saw  the  necessity  of  despatch  : but 
how  could  he  venture  to  leave  the  capital,  where  his 
presence  awed  the  disaffected  and  secured  the  co- 
operation of  his  colleagues  ? He  proposed  to  give  the 

1 This  opinion  was  so  general,  that  the  emperor,  Aug.  23,  wrote 
to  the  queen  that  she  ought  to  put  to  death  all  the  conspirators  who 
had  any  hand  in  “the  death”  of  the  late  king. — Renard,  apud 
Griffet,  xi.  Renard’s  despatches  are  in  three  volumes  in  the  library 
at  Besan§on ; but  the  more  interesting  of  those  respecting  Mary 
were  selected  from  the  third  volume  and  communicated  to  Griffet, 
the  author  of  the  valuable  notes  to  the  best  edition  of  Daniel’s  His- 
tory of  France.  From  them  Griffet  compiled,  in  a great  measure, 
his  “ Nouveaux  Eclaircissemens  sur  l’Histoire  de  Marie  Reine 
“ d’Angleterre,”  i2mo.  Amst.  et  Paris,  1766,  of  which  an  English 
translation  was  published  under  the  title  of  “ New  Lights  thrown 
“ upon  the  History  of  Mary,  Queen  of  England,”  8vo.  London, 

1771.  The  papers  employed  by  Griffet  were  never  replaced;  but 
those  which  remain  bear  abundant  testimony  to  his  accuracy  and 
fidelity. 

2 Mary  granted  to  the  earl  of  Sussex  a license  to  wear  “his  cap, 

“ coif,  or  night-cap,  or  two  of  them  at  his  pleasure,  in  the  royal 
“ presence,  or  in  the  presence  of  any  other  person.” — Oct.  2,  Hey- 

lin’s  Mary,  190.  # 

3 “ Certain  noblemen,  knights,  and  gentlemen  come  to  her  to 
“ mayntayn  her  title,  with  also  innumerable  companies  of  the  com- 
“ mon  people.” — Gage’s  Hengrave,  143. 


378 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  13. 


July  16. 


command  of  tlie  forces  to  the  duke  of  Suffolk,  whose 
affection  for-  his  daughter  was  a pledge  of  his  fidelity, 
and  whose  want  of  military  experience  might  he  sup- 
plied by  the  knowledge  of  his  associates.  But  he 
could  not  deceive  the  secret  partisans  of  Mary,  who 
saw  his  perplexity,  and  to  liberate  themselves  from  his 
control,  urged  him  to  take  the  command  upon  him- 
self. They  praised  his  skill,  his  valour,  and  his  good 
fortune ; they  exaggerated  the  insufficiency  of  Suf- 
folk, and  the  consequences  to  be  apprehended  from 
a defeat ; and  they  prevailed  upon  Jane,  through 
anxiety  for  her  father,  to  unite  with  them  in  their 
entreaties  to  Northumberland.  He  gave  a tardy  and 
reluctant  consent.  When  he  took  leave  of  his  col- 
leagues he  exhorted  them  to  fidelity  with  an  earnest- 
ness which  betrayed  his  apprehensions ; and,  as  he 
rode  through  the  city  at  the  head  of  the  troops,  he 
remarked,  in  a tone  of  despondency,  to  Sir  John  Gates, 
“The  people  crowd  to  look  upon  us,  but  not  one 
“exclaims,  God  speed  ye.”1 

From  the  beginning  the  duke  had  mistrusted  the 
fidelity  of  the  citizens : before  his  departure  he  re- 
quested the  aid  of  the  preachers,  and  exhorted  them 
to  appeal  from  the  pulpit  to  the  religious  feelings  of 
their  hearers.  By  no  one  was  the  task  performed 
with  greater  zeal  than  by  Bidley,  bishop  of  London, 
who,  on  the  following  Sunday,  preached  at  St.  Paul's 
Cross  before  the  lord  mayor,  the  aldermen,  and  a 
numerous  assemblage  of  the  people.  He  maintained 
that  the  daughters  of  Henry  VIII.  were,  by  the 
illegitimacy  of  their  birth,  excluded  from  the  suc- 
cession. He  contrasted  the  opposite  characters  of 
the  present  competitors,  the  gentleness,  the  piety, 
1 Godwin,  106.  Stowe,  610,  61 1. 


NORTHUMBERLAND  ALARMED. 


379 


the  orthodoxy  of  the  one,  with  the  haughtiness,  the 
foreign  connections,  and  the  popish  creed  of  the  other. 
As  a proof  of  Mary’s  bigotry,  he  narrated  a chivalrous 
but  unsuccessful  attempt,  which  he  had  made  within 
the  last  year,  to  withdraw  her  from  the  errors  of 
popery;1  and  in  conclusion,  he  conjured  the  audience, 
as  they  prized  the  pure  light  of  the  gospel,  to  support 
the  cause  of  the  lady  Jane,  and  to  oppose  the  claim 
of  her  idolatrous  rival.  But  the  torrent  of  his  elo- 
quence was  poured  in  vain.  Among  his  hearers  there 
were  many  indifferent  to  either  form  of  worship* 
Of  the  rest,  the  Protestants  had  not  yet  learned  that 
religious  belief  could  affect  hereditary  right ; and  the 
Catholics  were  confirmed  by  the  bishop’s  arguments 
in  their  adhesion  to  the  interests  of  Mary.2 

That  princess,  to  open  a communication  with  the 
emperor  in  Planders,  had  unexpectedly  left  Ken- 
ninghall;  and,  riding  forty  miles  without  rest,  had 
reached,  on  the  same  evening,  the  castle  of  Fram- 
lingham.  There  her  hopes  were  hourly  cheered  with 
the  most  gratifying  intelligence.  The  earl  of  Essex, 
the  lord  Thomas  Howard,  the  Jerninghams,  Beding- 
felds,  Sulyards,  Pastons,  and  most  of  the  neighbouring 
gentlemen,  successively  arrived,  with  their  tenants, 
to  fight  under  her  standard.3  Sir  Edward  Hastings, 
Sir  Edmund  Peckham,  and  Sir  Bobert  Drury,  had 
levied  ten  thousand  men  in  the  counties  of  Oxford, 
Buckingham,  Berks,  and  Middlesex,  and  purposed  to 
march  from  Drayton  for  Westminster  and  the  palace; 

1 See  note  (D). 

2 Concionatores,  quosbene  multos  Londini  constitnit,  nihil  profe- 
cerunt : imo  ne  quidem  egregius  ille  doctrina  vitaeque  sanctitate  vir 
Ridlaeus  episcopus  sequis  auribus  auditus  est.  Utinam  vir  optimus 
hac  in  re  lapsus  non  fuisset. — Godwin,  106.  See  Stowe,  ii.  6 1 1 ; 
Burnet,  238 ; H£ylin,  184;  Holinshed,  1089. 

3 See  note  (E). 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  14. 


380 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  17. 


her  more  distant  friends  continued  to  send  her  pre- 
sents of  money,  and  offers  of  service  ; Henry  Jerning- 
ham  prevailed  on  a hostile  squadron,  of  six  sail,  which 
had  reached  the  harbour  of  Yarmouth,  to  acknow- 
ledge her  authority ; and  a timely  supply  of  arms  and 
ammunition  from  the  ships  relieved  the  more  urgent 
wants  of  her  adherents.  In  a few  days  Mary  was 
surrounded  by  more  than  thirty  thousand  men,  all 
volunteers  in  her  cause,  who  refused  to  receive  pay, 
and  served  through  the  sole  motive  of  loyalty.1 

In  this  emergency,  doubt  and  distrust  seem  to  have 
unnerved  the  mind  of  Northumberland,  who  had 
marched  from  Cambridge,  in  the  direction  of  Fram- 
lingham,  accompanied  by  his  son  the  earl  of  Warwick, 
by  the  marquess  of  Northampton,  the  earl  of  Hunting- 
don, and  the  lord  Grey.  With  an  army  of  eight 
thousand  infantr}^,  and  two  thousand  cavalry,  inferior, 
indeed,  in  number  to  his  opponents,  but  infinitely 
superior  in  military  appointments  and  discipline,  he 
might,  by  a bold  and  immediate  attack,  have  dispersed 
the  tumultuary  force  of  the  royalists,  and  have  driven 
Mary  across  the  sea,  to  the  court  of  her  imperial 
cousin.  But  he  saw,  as  he  advanced,  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  people  in  her  cause;  he  heard  that  he  had 
been  proclaimed  a rebel,  and  that  a price  had  been 
fixed  on  his  head;2  and  he  feared  that  Sir  Edward 

1 Noailles,  ii.  94.  She,  however,  gave  orders  that  11  where  the 
11  captains  perceived  any  soldier  wanting  money,  his  captain  should 
11  relieve  him,  but  in  such  sort,  that  it  appeared  not  otherwise  but 
u to  be  of  his  own  liberality.” — Journal  of  Council  in  Haynes,  157. 

2 “ Assuring  all  and  everie  her  said  subjects  on  the  word  of  a 
“ rightful  queene,  that  whosoever  taketh  and  bringetli  the  said  duke 
11  unto  her  presence,  shall,  if  he  be  a nobleman  and  peer  of  the 
“ realme,  have  1000  pounds  in  land  to  him  and  his  heirs  ; likewise, 
“ if  he  be  a knight,  500  pounds  lands  to  him  and  his  heirs,  with  the 
“ honour  and  advancement  to  nobilitie;  and  also,  if  the  same  taker 
“ and  bringer  be  a gentleman  under  the  degree  of  a knight,  500 


LADY  JANE  GREY  RESIGNS. 


381 


Hastings  would,  in  a few  days,  cut  off  his  communi- 
cation with  the  capital.  At  Bury  his  heart  failed 
him.  He  ordered  a retreat  to  Cambridge,  and  wrote 
to  the  council  for  a numerous  and  immediate  rein- 
forcement. The  men  perceived  the  irresolution  of 
their  leader ; their  ignorance  of  his  motives  gave 
birth  to  the  most  disheartening  reports ; and  their 
ranks  were  hourly  thinned  by  desertion. 

In  the  council  there  appeared  no  diminution  of 
zeal,  no  want  of  unanimity.  It  was  resolved  to  send 
for  a body  of  mercenaries,  which  had  been  raised  in 
Picardy,  to  issue  commissions  for  the  levying  of  troops 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  metropolis,1  and  to  offer  eight 
crowns  per  month,  besides  provisions,  to  volunteers. 
But,  as  such  tardy  expedients  did  not  meet  the  ur- 
gency of  the  case,  the  lords  proposed  to  separate, 
and  hasten  to  the  army,  at  the  head  of  their  re- 
spective friends  and  dependants.  Though  Suffolk  had 
been  instructed  to  detain  them  within  the  walls  of 
the  Tower,  he  either  saw  not  their  object,  or  dared 
not  oppose  their  pleasure.  The  next  morning  the 
lord  treasurer  and  lord  privy  seal,  the  earls  of  Arun- 
del, Shrewsbury,  and  Pembroke,  Sir  Thomas  Cheney, 
and  Sir  John  Mason,  left  the  fortress  under  the  pre- 
tence of  receiving  the  French  ambassador  at  Bay- 
nard’s  Castle,  a fitter  place,  it  was  said,  for  that  pur- 
pose than  the  Tower.2 

41  marks  land  to  him  and  his  heirs,  and  the  degree  of  a knight ; and, 
“ if  the  said  taker  and  bringer  be  a yeoman,  ioo  pounds  lands  to 
11  him  and  his  heirs  and  the  degree  of  a squire.” — From  the  original 
in  possession  of  Sir  Henry  Bedingfeld. 

1 Some  of  them  may  be  seen  in  Strype,  iii.  Rec.  p.  4 ; in  his 
Cranmer,  App.  165  ; and  in  Hearne’s  Sylloge,  ep.  12 1. 

2 Strype,  iv.  349.  Yet  that  very  morning  they  had  signed  a 
letter  to  lord  Rich,  thanking  him  for  his  services  in  favour  of  Jane. — 
Strype’s  Cranmer,  App.  164.  Did  they  not  know  that  he  had 
already  transferred  them  to  Mary? — Haynes,  i.  159. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  18. 


July  19. 


382 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  20. 


There  they  were  joined  by  the  lord  mayor,  the  re- 
corder, and  a deputation  of  aldermen,  who  had  been 
summoned  by  a trusty  messenger  ; and  the  discussion 
was  opened  by  the  earl  of  Arundel,  who,  in  a set 
speech,  declaimed  against  the  ambition  of  Northum- 
berland, and  asserted  the  right  of  the  two  daughters 
of  Henry  VIII.  The  moment  he  had  finished,  the 
earl  of  Pembroke  drew  his  sword,  exclaiming,  “ If 
“ the  arguments  of  my  lord  of  Arundel  do  not  per- 
“ suade  you,  this  sword  shall  make  Mary  queen,  or 
“ I will  die  in  her  quarrel/’  He  was  answered  with 
shouts  of  approbation,  and  Suffolk,  who  had  been 
sent  for,  signed  with  the  others  the  proclamation  of 
Mary.  The  whole  body  then  rode  in  procession 
through  the  city.  At  St.  Paul’s  Cross  the  earl 
of  Pembroke  proclaimed  the  new  queen  amidst 
the  deafening  acclamations  of  the  populace.  Te 
Deum  was  sung  in  the  cathedral ; beer,  wine,  and 
money  were  distributed  among  the  people ; and 
the  night  was  ushered  in  with  bonfires,  illumina- 
tions, and  the  accustomed  demonstrations  of  public 

joy-1 

While  the  earl  of  Arundel  and  the  lord  Paget 
carried  the  intelligence  of  this  revolution  to  Pram- 
lingham,  the  earl  of  Pembroke,  with  his  company  of 
the  guard,  took  possession  of  the  Tower.  The  next 
morning  the  lady  Jane  departed  to  Sion  House.  Her 
reign  had  lasted  but  nine  days ; and  they  had  been 
days  of  anxiety  and  distress.  She  had  suffered  much 
from  her  own  apprehensions  of  an  unfortunate  result, 
more  from  the  displeasure  of  her  husband,  and  the 

1 Godwin,  107,  108.  Stowe,  612.  King’s  MSS.  xvii.  A.  ix. 
Rosso,  20.  Their  letter  to  the  Queen  is  in  Strype’s  Cranmer,  App. 
106. 


THE  QUEEN  ENTERS  THE  CAPITAL. 


383 


imperious  humour  of  his  mother.1  The  moment  she 
was  gone,  the  lords,  without  any  distinction  of  party, 
united  in  sending  an  order  to  Northumberland  to 
disband  his  forces,  and  to  acknowledge  Mary  for  his 
sovereign.  But  he  had  already  taken  the  only  part 
which  prudence  suggested.  Sending  for  the  vice- 
chancellor,  Dr.  Sands,  who,  on  the  preceding  Sunday, 
had  preached  against  the  daughters  of  Henry,  he 
proceeded  to  the  market-place,  where,  with  tears  of 
grief  running  down  his  cheeks,  he  proclaimed  the 
lady  Mary,  and  threw  his  cap  into  the  air,  in  token 
of  joy.  During  the  night  he  was  prevented  from 
making  his  escape  by  the  vigilance  of  his  own  men ; 
and  on  the  following  morning  he  was  arrested  on  a 
charge  of  high  treason,  by  the  earl  of  Arundel,  and 
conducted,  with  several  of  his  associates,  to  the  Tower. 
It  required  a strong  guard  to  protect  the  prisoners 
from  the  vengeance  of  the  populace.2 

1 The  quarrel  arose  from  the  ambition  of  Guilford.  After  a long 
discussion  Jane  consented  to  give  him  the  crown  by  act  of  parlia- 
ment : but,  when  she  was  left  to  herself,  she  repented  of  her  facility, 
and  informed  him  that  she  would  make  him  a duke,  but  not  king. 
In  his  anger  he  abstained  from  her  company  and  her  bed,  and 
threatened  to  go  back  to  Sion  House ; the  duchess  chided  and  up- 
braided her,  till  she  grew  so  alarmed,  as  to  persuade  herself  they 
had  given  her  poison.  u Dissi  loro,  che  se  la  corona  s’  aspettava  a 
“ me,  io  sarei  contenta  di  fare  il  mio  marito  Duca,  ma  non  consentirei 
11  mai  di  farlo  Re.  La  qual  mia  risoluzione,  reco  a sua  madre  (essen- 
“ dole  riferto  questo  mio  pensiero)  grand’  occasione  di  collora,  e di 
<£  sdegno,  dimanierache  adirandosi  ella  meco  molto  malamente,  e 
“ sdegnandosene  forte,  persuase  al  suo  figliuolo  che  non  dormisse  piu 
11  meco,  si  come  egli  fece ; affermandomi  pure  che  non  volea  in  guisa 

“ veruna  esser  duca  ma  Re Nel  rimanente,  io  per  me  non  so  quel- 

“ lo  ch’l  consiglio  havesse  determinato  di  fare,  ma  so  ben  di  certo,  che 
“ due  volte  in  questo  tempo  m’  e stato  dato  il  veleno,  la  prima  fii  in 
11  casa  la  Duchessa  di  Nor tumber land,  e di  poi  qui  in  Torre,  si  come 
“ io  u’  ho  ottimi  e certissimi  testimoni,  olireche,  da  quel  tempo  in  qua, 
11  mi  son  caduti  tutti  i peli  d’addosso.  E tutte  queste  cose  1’  ho  volute 
11  dire,  per  testimonianza  dell’  innocenzia  mia,  e scarico  della  mia  con- 
“ scienza.” — Pollini,  p,  357,  358.  Rosso,  56. 

2 Stowe,  612.  Godwin,  109.  The  number  of  prisoners  for  trial 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  22. 


384 


MARY. 


chap.  The  lady  Elizabeth  had  taken  no  part  in  this  con- 
a.d.  ’1553.  test.  To  a messenger,  indeed,  from  Northumberland, 
who  offered  her  a large  sum  of  money,  and  a valuable 
grant  of  lands,  as  the  price  of  her  voluntary  renun- 
ciation of  all  right  to  the  succession,  she  replied,  that 
she  had  no  right  to  renounce,  as  long  as  her  elder 
sister  was  living.  But,  if  she  did  not  join  the  Lady 
Jane,  she  did  nothing  in  aid  of  the  lady  Mary.  Under 
the  excuse  of  a real  or  feigned  indisposition,  she  con- 
fined herself  to  her  chamber,  that,  whichever  party 
proved  victorious,  she  might  claim  the  negative  merit 
of  non-resistance.  Now,  however,  the  contest  was  at 
an  end  : the  new  queen  approached  her  capital ; and 
Elizabeth  deemed  it  prudent  to  court  the  favour  of 
July  31.  the  conqueror.  At  the  head  of  a hundred  and  fifty 
horse,  she  met  her  at  Aldgate.  They  rode  together 
in  triumphal  procession  through  the  streets,  which 
were  lined  with  the  different  crafts  in  their  gayest 
attire.  Every  eye  was  directed  towards  the  royal 
sisters.  Those  who  had  seen  Henry  VIII.  and  Ca- 
therine could  discover  little  in  the  queen  to  remind 
them  of  the  majestic  port  of  her  father,  or  of  the  beau- 
tiful features  and  graceful  carriage  of  her  mother. 
Her  figure  was  short  and  small ; the  lines  of  care  were 
deeply  impressed  on  her  countenance  ; and  her  dark 
piercing  eyes  struck  with  awe  all  those  on  whom  they 

was  twenty-seven — the  dukes  of  Suffolk  and  Northumberland ; the 
marquess  of  Northampton  ; the  earls  of  Huntingdon  and  Warwick  ; 
the  lords  Robert , Henry , Ambrose,  and  Guilford  Dudley  ; the  lady 
JaneDudley ; the  bishops  of  Canterbury,  London , andjETy;  the  lords 
Ferrers , Clinton , and  Cobliam;  the  judges  Montague  and  Cliolmeley , 
and  the  chancellor  of  the  augmentations ; Andrew  Dudley,  John  Gates, 
Henry  Gates,  Thomas  Palmer,  Henry  Palmer,  John  Cheek,  John  York, 
knights;  and  Dr.  Cocks. — Haynes,  192,  193.  When  this  list  was 
given  to  the  queen,  she  struck  out  the  names  in  italics,  and  reduced 
the  number  from  twenty-seven  to  eleven. 


NEW  COINAGE. 


385 


were  fixed.  In  personal  appearance  Elizabeth  had 
the  advantage.  She  was  in  the  bloom  of  youth,  about 
half  the  age  of  the  queen.  Without  much  pretension 
to  beauty,  she  could  boast  of  agreeable  features,  large 
blue  eyes,  a tall  and  portly  figure,  and  of  hands,  the 
elegant  symmetry  of  which  she  was  proud  to  display 
on  every  occasion.1  As  they  passed,  their  ears  were 
stunned  with  the  acclamations  of  the  people ; when 
they  entered  the  Tower,  they  found  kneeling  on  the 

[green,  the  state  prisoners,  the  duchess  of  Somerset, 
the  duke  of  Norfolk,  the  son  of  the  late  marquess 
of  Exeter,  and  Tunstall  and  Gardiner,  the  deprived 
bishops  of  Durham  and  Winchester.  The  latter  pro- 
nounced a short  congratulatory  address.  Mary  burst 
into  tears,  called  them  her  prisoners,  bade  them  rise, 
and  having  kissed  them,  gave  them  their  liberty.  The 
same  day  she  ordered  a dole  to  be  distributed,  of  eight 
pence,  to  every  poor  householder  in  the  city. 

In  the  appointment  of  her  official  advisers,  the 
new  queen  was  directed  by  necessity  as  much  as 
choice.  If  the  lords  who,  escaping  from  the  Tower, 
had  proclaimed  her  in  the  city,  expected  to  retain 
their  former  situations,  the  noblemen  and  gentlemen 

lrThey  are  thus  described  by  the  Venetian  ambassador,  in  his 
official  communication  to  the  senate.  The  queen  is  donna  di  statura 
piccola,  di  persona  magra  e delicata,  dissimile  in  tutto  al  padre  et  alia 
madre...ha  gli  occhi  tanto  vivi,  che  inducanonon  solo  riverentiama 
timore.  Elisabeth  e piu  tosto  graziosa  che  bella,  di  persona  grande 
e ben  formata,  olivastra  in  complexione,  belli  occhi,  e sopra  tutto 
bella  mano,  della  quale  ne  fa  professione.  The  writer  was  M.  Gio. 
Michele,  galantissimo  e virtuosissiino  gentilhuomo  (Ep.  Poli,  v. 
App.  349),  who,  on  his  return  to  Venice,  compiled  an  account  of 
England,  by  order  of  the  senate.  It  was  read  in  that  assembly,  May 
I3,  1537.  Mr.  Ellis  has  published  a translation  from  the  copy  in  the 
British  Museum,  Nero,  B.  vii;  but  that  copy  is  not  so  full  as  that 
in  the  Lansdowne  MSS.  dcccxl.,  or  one  in  the  possession  of  Henry 
Howard  of  Greystoke  Castle,  Esq.,  or  another  in  the  Barberini  Library, 
No.  1,208,  from  which  the  quotations  are  taken. 

VOL.  V.  2 C 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


386 


MARY. 


chap,  who  had  adhered  to  her  fortunes,  when  every  proba- 
a.d.  1553.  bility  was  against  her,  had  still  more  powerful  claims 
on  her  gratitude.  She  sought  to  satisfy  both  classes, 
by  admitting  them  into  her  council ; and  to  these  she 
successively  added  a few  others,  among  whom  the 
August  5.  chief  were  the  bishops  Gardiner  and  Tunstall,  who, 
under  her  father,  had.  been  employed  in  offices  of 
trusty  and  had  discharged  them  with  fidelity  and 
success.  The  acknowledged  abilities  of  the  former 
August  23.  soon  raised  him  to  the  post  of  prime  minister.  He 
first  received  the  custody  of  the  seals,  and  was  soon 
Sept.  21.  afterwards  appointed  chancellor,1  The  next  to  him, 
in  ability  and  influence  in  the  council,  was  the  lord 
Paget. 

V Though  the  queen  found  herself  unexpectedly  in 
debt  from  the  policy  of  Northumberland,  who  had 
kept,,  the  officers  and  servants  of  the  crown  three 
years  in  arrear  of  their  salaries,2  she  issued  two  pro- 
clamations, which  drew  upon  her  the  blessings  of  the 
August  30.  whole  nation.  By  the  first  she  restored  a depreciated 
currency  to  its  original  value,  ordered  a new  coinage  of 
sovereigns  and  half-sovereigns,  angels  and  half-angels, 
of  fine  gold,  and  of  silver  groats,  h^lf- groats,  and 
pennies  of  the  standard  purity ; and  charged  the 
whole  loss  and  expense  to  the  treasury.  By  the  other 
she  remitted  to  her  people,  in  gratitude  for  their 
attachment  to  her  right,  the  subsidy  of  four  shillings 
in  the  pound  on  land,  and  two  shillings  and  eight 
pence  on  goods,  which  had  been  granted  to  the  crown 

Noailles,  ii.  123.  Gardiner  was  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  the 
French  ministers,  from  the  uncourteous  manner  in  which,  on  two 
occasions,  he  had  executed  the  harsh  and  imperious  mandates  of  his 
master,  Henry  VIII.  Noailles  complains,  that  imprisonment  had 
not  tamed  him. — Ibid. 

2 Noailles,  ii.  92.  His  object  had  been  to  attach  them  to  his 
cause,  through  the  fear  of  losing  their  arrears. 


THE  QUEEN’S  CORONATION. 


387 


by  the  late  parliament.1  As  the  time  of  her  corona- 
tion approached,  the  queen  introduced,  within  the 
palace  an  innovation  highly  gratifying  to  the  younger 
branches  of  the  female  nobility,  though  it  foreboded 
little  good  to  the  reformed  preachers.  Under  Ed- 
ward, their  fanaticism  had  given  to  the  court  a sombre 
and  funereal  appearance.  That  they  might  exclude 
from  it  the  pomps  of  the  devil,  they  had  strictly  for- 
bidden all  richness  of  apparel,  and  every  fashionable 
amusement.  But  Mary,  who  recollected  with  pleasure 
the  splendid  gaieties  of  her  father’s  reign,  appeared 
publicly  in  jewels  and  coloured  silks ; the  ladies, 
emancipated  from  restraint,  copied  her  example ; and 
the  courtiers,  encouraged  by  the  approbation  of  their 
sovereign,  presumed  to  dress  with  a splendour  that 
became  their  rank  in  the  state.2  A new  impulse  was 
thus  communicated  to  all  classes  of  persons ; and 
considerable  sums  were  expended  by  the  citizens  in 
public  and  private  decorations,  preparatory  to  the 
coronation.  That  ceremony  was  performed  after  the 
ancient  rite,  by  Gardiner  bishop  of  Winchester,3  and 
was  concluded  in  the  usual  manner,  with  a magnificent 

*Strype,  iii.  8^  io.  St.  i Mary,  c.  xvii.  Gage’s  Hengrave,  153. 
The  sovereign  was  to  pass  at  thirty,  the  angel  at  ten  shillings. — 
Noailles,  141. 

2 Elle  a desja  oste  les  superstitions , qui  estoient  par  cydevant, 
que  les  femmes  ne  portassent  dorures  ni  habillemens  de  couleur, 
estant  elle  mesme  et  beanconp  de  sa  compagnie,  parees  de  dorures, 
et  habill6es  a la  Fra^oise  de  robes  a grandz  manches. — Noailles,  ii. 
104.  Elle  est  l’une  des  dames  du  monde,  qui  prend  maintenant 
aultant  de  plaisir  en  habillemens  (146).  Les  millords  et  jeunes 
seigneurs  portent  chausses  aultant  exquises,  soit  de  thoiles  et  drapz 
d’or  etbroderies,  que  j’en  aye  peu  veoir  en  France  ne  ailleurs  (211). 
Thus  also  we  are  assured  by  Aylmer  that,  though  Henry  VIII.  had 
left  to  his  daughter  Elizabeth  rich  clothes  and  jewels,  “he  knew  it 
“ to  be  true  that  there  never  came  gold  or  stone  upon  her  head  till 
“ her  sister  forced  her  to  lay  off  her  former  soberness,  and  bear  her 
11  company  in  her  glittering  gayness.” 

s “ It  was  done  royally,  and  such  a multitude  of  people  resorted 

2 c 2 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


Sept.  30. 


388 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D. 1553. 


banquet  in  Westminster  Hall.1  The  same  day  a 
general  pardon  was  proclaimed,  with  the  exception, 
by  name,  of  sixty  individuals  who  had  been  committed 
to  prison,  or  confined  to  their  own  houses,  by  order 
of  council,  for  treasonable  or  seditious  offences  com- 
mitted since  the  queen’s  accession. 

But  though  Mary  was  now  firmly  seated  on  the 
throne,  she  found  herself  without  a friend  to  whom 
she  could  open  her  mind  with  freedom  and  safety. 
Among  the  leading  members  of  her  council  there 
was  not  one  who  had  not,  in  the  reigns  of  her  father 
or  her  brother,  professed  himself  her  enemy ; nor  did 
she  now  dare  to  trust  them  with  her  confidence,  till 
she  had  assured  herself  of  their  fidelity.  In  this 
distress  she  had  recourse  to  the  prince  who  had  always 
proved  himself  her  friend,  and  who,  she  persuaded 
herself,  could  have  no  interest  in  deceiving  her.  She 
solicited  the  advice  of  the  emperor  on  three  very 
important  questions ; the  punishment  of  those  who 
had  conspired  to  deprive  her  of  the  crown,  the 
choice  of  her  future  husband,  and  the  restoration  of 
the  ancient  worship.  It  was  agreed  between  them 
that  the  correspondence  on  these  subjects  should  pass 
through  the  hands  of  the  imperial  ambassador,  Simon 
de  Renard,  and  that  he,  to  elude  suspicion,  should 
live  in  comparative  privacy,  and  very  seldom  make 
his  appearance  at  court. 

i.  To  the  first  question  Charles  replied,  that  it 
was  the  common  interest  of  sovereigns  that  rebellion 

“ out  of  all  parties  of  the  realme  to  see  the  same,  that  the  like  had 
“not  been  seen  tofore.” — Cont.  of  Fabyan,  557. 

1 Strype,  iii.  36.  Stowe,  616.  Holings.  1091.  In  the  church 
Elizabeth  carried  the  crown.  She  whispered  to  Noailles  that  it 
was  very  heavy.  “ Be  patient,”  he  replied,  “it  will  seem  lighter 
“ when  it  is  on  your  own  head.” — Iienard  apud  Griffet,  xiii. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  TRAITORS. 


389 


should  not  go  unpunished ; but  that  she  ought  to 
blend  mercy  with  justice ; and,  having  inflicted  speedy 
vengeance  on  the  chief  of  the  conspirators,  to  grant  a 
free  and  unsolicited  pardon  to  the  remainder.  In 
compliance  with  this  advice,  Mary  had  selected  out 
of  the  list  of  prisoners  seven  only  for  immediate 
trial ; the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  the  contriver 
and  executor  of  the  plot,  his  son  the  earl  of  Warwick, 
the  marquess  of  Northampton,  Sir  John  Gates,  Sir 
Henry  Gates,  Sir  Andrew  Dudley,  and  Sir  Thomas 
Palmer,  his  principal  counsellors  and  constant  asso- 
ciates. It  was  in  vain  that  the  imperial  ministers 
urged  her  to  include  the  lady  Jane  in  the  number. 
Were  she  spared,  the  queen,  they  alleged,  could 
never  reign  in  security.  The  first  faction  that  dared 
would  again  set  her  up  as  a rival.  She  had  usurped 
the  crown,  and  policy  required  that  she  should  pay 
the  forfeit  of  her  presumption.  But  Mary  undertook 
her  defence.  She  could  not,  she  said,  find  in  her  heart 
or  in  her  conscience  to  put  her  unfortunate  cousin 
to  death.  Jane  was  not  so  guilty  as  the  emperor 
believed.  She  had  not  been  the  accomplice  of 
Northumberland,  but  merely  a puppet  in  his  hands. 
Neither  was  she  his  daughter-in-law ; for  she  had 
been  validly  contracted  to  another  person,  before  she 
was  compelled  to  marry  Guilford  Dudley.  As  for 
the  danger  arising  from  her  pretensions,  it  was  but 
imaginary.  Every  requisite  precaution  might  be 
taken,  before  she  was  restored  to  liberty.1 

For  the  trial  of  the  three  noblemen,  the  duke  of 
Norfolk  had  been  appointed  high  steward.  When 
they  were  brought  before  their  peers,  Northumberland 
submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  court  the  fol- 
1 Renard  apud  Griffet,  xi. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553- 


July  20. 


August  1 8. 


390 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.H.  1553. 


lowing  questions  : Could  that  man  be  guilty  of  treason 
who  had  acted  hy  the  authority  of  the  prince  and 
council,  and  under  the  warrant  of  the  great  seal ; 
or  could  those  persons  sit  in  judgment  upon  him, 
who,  during  the  whole  proceedings,  had  been  his 
advisers  and  accomplices?  It  was  replied,  that  the 
great  seal  of  which  he  spoke  was  not  that  of  the  so- 
vereign, but  of  an  usurper,1  and  that  the  lords  to 
whom  he  alluded  were  able  in  law  to  sit  as  judges, 
so  long  as  there  was  no  record  of  attainder  against 
them.  In  these  answers  he  acquiesced,  pleaded 
guilty,  together  with  his  companions,  and  petitioned 
the  queen  that  she  would  commute  his  punishment 
into  decapitation ; that  mercy  might  be  extended  to 
his  children,  who  had  acted  under  his  direction ; that 
he  might  have  the  aid  of  an  able  divine  to  prepare 
himself  for  death ; and  might  be  allowed  to  confer 
with  two  lords  of  the  council  on  certain  secrets  of 
state  which  had  come  to  his  knowledge  while  he  was 
prime  minister.  To  these  requests  Maiy  assented.2 

1 It  has  lately  been  contended  that  Northumberland’s  question 
referred  to  the  great  seal  affixed  to  Edward’s  new  settlement  of  the 
succession,  but  that  the  judges,  to  avoid  the  difficulty  of  giving  a 
direct  answer,  purposely  mistook  it  for  the  great  seal  of  Lady  Jane 
Grey.  If  this  was  so,  it  is  marvellous  that  the  duke  took  no  notice 
of  the  mistake.  In  fact,  however,  he  must  have  been  aware  that  no 
great  seal  could  be  of  force  in  his  case,  because  the  statute  of  the 
35th  of  Henry  VIII.  c.  1,  had  made  it  high  treason  to  do  any  act 
for  the  purpose  of  disturbing  or  interrupting  the  right  of  any  person 
to  the  succession  according  to  the  provisions  of  that  statute ; and 
Chief  Justice  Montague  had  refused  to  obey  Edward’s  order  to  him 
under  the  great  seal  to  draw  a new  settlement,  unless  he  should 
be  previously  assured  of  a free  pardon  the  moment  that  he  had  drawn 
it.  See  before,  p.  358. 

2 Stowe,  614.  Howell’s  State  Trials,  765.  Rosso,  29.  Persons 
(in  his  Wardword,  p.  44)  informs  us  that  in  consequence  of  the 
last  request,  Gardiner  and  another  counsellor  (the  informer  of 
Persons)  visited  him  in  the  Tower.  The  duke  earnestly  petitioned 
for  life ; Gardiner  gave  him  little  hope,  but  promised  his  services. 
Returning  to  court,  he  entreated  the  queen  to  spare  the  prisoner. 


QUEEN  PROPOSES  TO  MARRY. 


391 


Of  the  three  lords,  Northumberland  alone,  of  the 
four  commoners,  who  also  pleaded  guilty,  Sir  John 
Grates  and  Sir  Thomas  Palmer  were  selected  for 
execution.  The  morning  before  they  suffered,  they 
attended  and  communicated  at  a solemn  mass  in 
the  Tower,  in  presence  of  several  lords,  and  of  the 
mayor  and  aldermen.  On  the  scaffold  a few  words 
passed  between  Grates  and  the  duke.  Each  charged 
the  other  with  the  origin  of  the  conspiracy ; but  the 
altercation  was  conducted  with  temper,  and  they 
ended  by  reciprocally  asking  forgiveness.  Northum- 
berland, stepping  to  the  rail,  addressed  the  spectators. 
He  acknowledged  the  justice  of  his  punishment,  but 
denied  that  he  was  the  first  projector  of  the  treason. 
He  called  on  them  to  witness  that  he  was  in  charity 
with  all  mankind,  that  he  died  in  the  faith  of  his 
fathers,  though  ambition  had  induced  him  to  conform 
in  practice  to  a worship  which  he  condemned  in  his 
heart,  and  that  his  last  prayer  was  for  the  return  of 
his  countrymen  to  the  Catholic  church ; for,  since 
their  departure  from  it,  England,  like  Germany,  had 
been  a prey  to  dissensions,  tumults,  and  civil  war. 
Gates  and  Palmer  suffered  after  the  duke,  each  ex- 
pressing similar  sentiments,  and  soliciting  the  prayers 
of  the  beholders.1 

and  had  in  a manner  obtained  her  consent  • but  the  opposite  party 
in  the  cabinet  wrote  (or  rather  had  written)  to  the  emperor,  who  by 
letter  persuaded  Mary  “ that  it  was  not  safe  for  her  or  the  state  to 
“ pardon  his  life.”  From  Renard’s  despatches  I have  no  doubt  that 
this  account  is  substantially  correct.  See  also  a letter  from  him  to 
Arundel  the  night  before  his  execution,  in  which  he  asks  for  life, 
“ yea  the  life  of  a dogge,  that  he  may  but  lyve  and  kiss  the  queen’s 
“ feet,”  in  Mr.  Tierney’s  interesting  “ History  and  Antiquities  of 
“ the  Castle  and  Town  of  Arundel,”  i.  333. 

xIfwe  may  believe  Foxe  (iii.  13),  Northumberland  was  induced 
to  make  this  profession  of  his  belief  by  a delusive  promise  of  pardon. 
He  himself  asserts  the  contrary.  “ I do  protest  to  you,  good  people, 
“ earnestly,  even  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  that  this,  which  I 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.H.  1553* 

August  21. 


August  22. 


392 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 


Sept.  28. 


2.  Under  the  reign  of  Edward,  Mary  had  spon- 
taneously preferred  a single  life ; but,  from  the  mo- 
ment of  her  accession  to  the  throne,  she  made  no 
secret  of  her  intention  to  marry.  Of  natives,  two 
only  were  proposed  to  her  choice,  both  descended 
from  the  house  of  York ; Cardinal  Pole,  and  Cour- 
tenay, whom  the  queen  had  recently  liberated  from 
the  Tower.  The  cardinal  she  respected  for  his  talents 
and  virtues,  his  advocacy  of  her  mother’s  right,  and 
his  sufferings  in  her  cause.  But  his  age  and  infir- 
mities forbade  her  to  think  of  him  for  a husband.1 
Courtenay  was  young  and  handsome;  his  royal  descent 
and  unmerited  imprisonment  (for  his  character  was 
unknown)  had  made  him  the  favourite  of  the  nation  ; 
and  his  mother,  the  countess  of  Exeter,  was  the  indi- 
vidual companion  and  bed-fellow  of  the  queen.  Mary 
at  first  betrayed  a partiality  for  the  young  man : she 
created  him  earl  of  Devon ; she  sought,  by  different 
artifices,  to  keep  him  near  herself  and  his  mother; 
and  she  made  it  her  study  to  fashion  his  manners, 
which,  during  his  confinement  in  the  Tower,  had  been 
entirely  neglected.  The  courtiers  confidently  pre- 
dicted their  marriage ; and  Gardiner  promoted  it  with 
all  the  influence  of  his  station.  But  if  Courtenay  had 
made  any  impression  on  the  heart  of  the  queen,  it 

11  have  spoken,  is  of  myself,  not  being  required  nor  moved  thereto 
“ of  any  man,  nor  for  any  flattery,  nor  hope  of  life.  And  I take 
“ witness  of  my  lord  of  Worcester  here,  my  ghostly  father,  that  he 
“ found  me  in  this  mind  and  opinion  when  he  came  to  me.” — Stowe, 
615.  Strype’s  Cranmer,  App.  168.  Indeed,  he  was  known,  in 
Edward’s  reign,  to  have  no  other  religion  than  interest,  and  on  one 
occasion  spoke  so  contumeliously  of  the  new  service,  that  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  in  a moment  of  zeal  or  passion,  challenged  him  to  a duel — 
ad  duellum  provocaret. — Parker,  Ant.  Brit.  341.  “He  offered  to 
“ combate  with  the  duke.” — Morrice  apud  Strype,  430. 

1 Quant  au  Cardinal,  je  ne  scay  pas  qui  parle  que  la  royne  yeut 
oppinion  ; car  il  n’est  ne  d’age,  ne  de  sancte  convenables  a ce  qu’elle 
demande,  et  qui  luy  est  propre. — Noailles,  207. 


IMMORALITY  OF  COURTENAY. 


393 


was  speedily  effaced  by  liis  misconduct.  Having  once 
tasted  of  liberty,  he  resolved  to  enjoy  it  without  re- 
straint. He  frequented  the  lowest  society ; he  spent 
much  of  his  time  in  the  company  of  prostitutes ; and 
he  indulged  in  gratifications  disgraceful  to  his  rank, 
and  shocking  to  the  piety  and  feelings  of  the  queen. 
It  was  in  vain  that  she  commissioned  a gentleman  of 
the  court  to  guide  his  inexperience ; in  vain  that  the 
French  and  Venetian  ambassadors  admonished  him 
of  the  consequences  of  his  folly;  he  scorned  their 
advice,  refused  to  speak  to  his  monitor,  and  pursued 
his  wild  career,  till  he  had  entirely  forfeited  the 
esteem  and  favour  ot  his  sovereign.  In  public  she 
observed,  that  it  was  not  for  her  honour  to  marry  a 
subject;  but  to  her  confidential  friends  she  attributed 
the  cause  to  the  immorality  of  Courtenay.1 

The  foreign  princes,  mentioned  by  the  lords  of  the 
council,  were,  the  king  of  Denmark,  the  prince  of 
Spain,  the  infant  of  Portugal,  the  prince  of  Piedmont, 
and  the  son  of  the  king  of  the  Eomans.  Mary,  who 
had  already  asked  the  advice  of  the  emperor,  waited 
with  impatience  for  his  answer.  It  was  obviously  the 
interest  of  Charles  that  she  should  prefer  his  son 
Philip.  His  inveterate  enemy,  the  king  of  France, 
was  in  possession  of  the  young  queen  of  Scots ; within 

1 Noailles,  hi,  112,  147,  218,  220.  Ceste  Royne  est  en  mau- 
vaise  oppinion  de  luy,  pour  avoir  entendu  qu’il  faict  beaucoup  de 
jeunesses,  et  mesme  d’aller  souvent  avecqucs  les  femmes  publicques 
et  de  mauvaise  vie,  et  suivre  d’aultres  compaignies  sans  regarder  la 

gravite  et  rang  qu’il  doibt  tenir  pour  aspirer  en  si  hault  lieu 

Mais  il  est  si  mal  ayse  a conduire,  qu’il  ne  veult  croire  personne,  et 
com  me  celluy  qui  a demeure  toute  sa  vie  dans  une  tour,  se  voyant 
maintenant  jouyr  d’une  grande  liberte  il  ne  se  peult  saouller  des 
delices  d’icelle,  n’ayant  aulcune  craincte  des  choses  qu’on  luy  mette 
devant  les  yeulx. — Ibid.  219,  320.  I have  transcribed  these  pas- 
sages, because  Hume,  to  account  for  the  rejection  of  Courtenay,  has 
given  us  a very  romantic  statement,  for  which  he  could  have  no  better 
authority  than  his  own  imagination. 


CHA1\ 

V. 

A--0-  1553* 


394 


MARY. 


crap,  two  or  three  years  that  princess  would  be  married  to 
a.d.  1553.  the  dauphin ; and  in  all  probability  the  crown  of 
Scotland  would  be  united  to  that  of  France.  But  if 
Charles  had  hitherto  envied  the  good  fortune  of 
Henry,  accident  had  now  made  him  amends : the 
queen  of  England  was  a better  match  than  the  queen 
of  Scotland ; and,  if  he  could  persuade  Mary  to  give 
her  hand  to  Philip,  that  alliance  would  confer  on  him 
a proud  superiority  over  his  rival.  He  was,  however, 
careful  not  to  commit  himself  by  too  hasty  an  answer, 
and  trusted  for  awhile  to  the  address  and  influence 
August  14.  of  Renard.  That  ambassador  was  admonished  to  con- 
sider this  as  the  most  important  but  most  delicate 
point  in  his  mission ; to  bear  in  mind  that  the  incli- 
nation of  a woman  was  more  likely  to  be  inflamed 
than  extinguished  by  opposition  ; to  draw  to  light,  by 
distant  questions  and  accidental  remarks,  the  secret 
dispositions  of  the  queen ; to  throw  into  his  conversa- 
tion occasional  hints  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  a foreign  alliance ; and,  above  all,  to  commit  no 
act,  to  drop  no  word,  from  which  she  might  infer 
that  he  was  an  enemy  to  her  marriage  with  Cour- 
tenay.1 Renard  obeyed  his  instructions  : he  watched 
with  attention  the  successive  steps  by  which  that 
nobleman  sunk  in  the  royal  estimation ; and  soon  an- 
Sept.  20.  nounced  to  his  sovereign  that  Courtenay  had  no  longer 
any  hold  on  the  affections  of  Mary.2 3  Charles  now 

1 Car  si  elle  y avoit  fantaisie,  elle  ne  layroit,  si  elle  est  du  naturel 

des  autres  femmes,  de  passer  outre,  et  si  se  resentiroit  a jamais  de  ce 
que  vous  lui  en  pourriez  avoir  dit. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  38. 

3 Yeau  par  vos  lettres  qu’elle  a si  empressement  reboute  Cortenay, 
aux  devises  entretiens  qui  passerent  entre  elle  et  l’eveque  de  Win- 
cestre,  lequel  Cortenay  toutefois  etoit  le  plus  apparent  pour  etre  du 
sang  royal. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  48,  Sept.  20.  I may  observe, 
as  a proof  of  the  emperor’s  industry,  that  he  wrote  all  these 
despatches  with  his  own  hand. 


THE  EMPEROR  OFFERS  HIS  SON. 


395 


ordered  him  to  inform  the  queen  that  he  approved  of 
the  reasons  which  had  induced  her  to  reject  her  young 
kinsman,  and  was  sorry  that  the  unambitious  piety  of 
Cardinal  Pole  made  him  prefer  the  duties  of  a clergy- 
man to  the  highest  of  worldly  distinctions.  Still  per- 
haps she  had  no  cause  to  regret  the  loss  of  either : a 
foreign  prince  would  bring,  as  a husband,  a firmer 
support  to  her  throne ; and,  were  it  that  his  own  age 
would  allow  him,  he  should  himself  aspire  to  the 
honour  of  her  hand.  He  might,  however,  solicit  in 
favour  of  others ; nor  could  he  offer  to  her  choice  one 
more  dear  to  himself  than  his  son,  the  prince  of  Spain. 
The  advantages  of  such  an  union  were  evident : but 
let  her  not  be  swayed  by  his  authority : she  had 
only  to  consult  her  own  inclination  and  judgment, 
and  to  communicate  the  result  to  him  without  fear  or 
reserve.1 

It  was  soon  discovered  by  the  courtiers  that  Philip 
had  been  proposed  to  the  queen,  and  had  not  been 
rejected.  The  chancellor  was  the  first  to  remonstrate 
with  his  sovereign.  He  observed  to  her  that  her 
people  would  more  readily  submit  to  the  rule  of  a 
native  than  of  a foreigner ; that  the  arrogance  of  the 
Spaniards  had  rendered  them  odious  in  other  nations, 
and  would  never  be  borne  by  Englishmen ; that  Philip 
by  his  haughty  carriage  had  already  earned  the  dislike 
of  his  own  subjects ; that  such  an  alliance  must  be 
followed  by  perpetual  war  with  the  king  of  France, 
who  would  never  consent  that  the  Low  Countries 
should  be  annexed  to  the  English  crown ; and  that 
the  marriage  could  not  be  validly  celebrated  without 

1 Nous  ne  voudrions  choisir  autre  partie  en  ce  monde  que  de  nous 
allier  nous  memes  avec  elle. — Mais  au  lieu  de  nous,  ne  lui  saurions 
mettre  en  avant  personnage,  qui  nous  soit  plus  cher  que  notre  propre 
fils. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii'.  fol.  49.  Griffet,  xiv. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553 


396 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 
Oct.  22. 


a dispensation  from  the  pope,  whose  authority  was  not 
yet  acknowledged  in  the  kingdom.  Gardiner,  who 
spoke  the  sentiments  of  the  majority  of  the  council, 
was  followed  by  others  of  his  colleagues ; they  were 
opposed  by  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  the  earl  of  Arundel, 
and  the  lord  Paget.1 

On  no  persons  did  this  intelligence  make  a deeper 
impression  than  on  the  French  and  Venetian  ambas- 
sadors, who  deemed  it  their  duty  to  throw  every 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  a marriage  which  would  so 
greatly  augment  the  power  of  Spain.  They  secretly 
gave  advice  to  Courtenay ; they  promised  their  influ- 
ence to  create  a party  in  his  favour ; and  they  laboured 
to  obtain  in  the  ensuing  parliament  a declaration 
against  the  Spanish  match.  Noailles  went  even  fur- 
ther. He  intrigued  with  the  discontented  of  every 
description;  and,  though  it  was  contrary  to  the  in- 
structions of  his  sovereign,  he  endeavoured  to  propa- 
gate a notion,  that  the  rightful  heir  to  the  crown  was 
neither  Mary,  nor  Elizabeth,  nor  Jane,  but  the  young 
queen  of  Scotland,  Mary  Stuart,  daughter  to  the  eldest 
sister  of  Henry  VIII.2 

1 Noailles,  i.  214.  Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  48.  Griffet,  xvi.  xix. 
Par  votre  lettre  du  23  nous  avons  entendu  les  persuasions  dont  ont 
use  les  eveques  de  Wincestre,  contreroleur,  et  autres  nommes  en 
votre  lettre  pour  incliner  la  volonte  de  la  reine  envers  Cortenai.  II 
est  apparent  que  ce  doit  ete  un  jeu  joue  par  les  eveques  de  Wincestre, 
ayant  reparti  les  argumens  entre  lui  et  les  autres,  pour  plus  efficace- 
ment  faire  cet  office. — Renard’s  MSS.  fol.  70.  Most  of  our  his- 
torians represent  Gardiner  as  the  enemy  of  Courtenay,  and  the  deviser 
of  the  Spanish  match.  It  is,  however,  evident,  from  the  despatches 
of  both  ambassadors,  that  he  was  the  friend  of  Courtenay,  and  the 
great  opponent  of  the  marriage.  It  must  also  have  been  so  under- 
stood at  the  time ; for  Persons,  who  never  saw  those  despatches, 
says,  “Every  child  acquainted  with  that  state  knoweth  or  may  learn, 
“ that  B.  Gardiner  was  of  the  contrary  part  or  faction  that  favoured 
“ young  Edward  Courtenay,  the  earl  of  Devonshire,  and  would  have 
“ had  him  to  marry  the  queen. — Wardword,  46. 

2 Noailles,  145,  157,  161,  164,  168,  194,  211,  221. 


ORDERS  RESPECTING  RELIGION. 


397 


3.  That  attachment  to  the,  ancient  faith  which 
Mary  had  shown  during  the  reign  of  her  brother,  had 
not  been  loosened  by  the  late  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
identify  the  cause  of  rebellion  with  that  of  the  Refor- 
mation. On  her  accession,  she  acquainted  both  the 
emperor  and  the  king  of  France  with  her  deter- 
mination to  restore  the  Catholic  worship.  Henry 
applauded  her  zeal,  and  offered  the  aid  of  his  forces, 
if  it  were  necessary,  towards  the  accomplishment  of 
the  work;  but  Charles  advised  her  to  proceed  with 
temper  and  caution,  and  to  abstain  from  any  public 
innovation  till  she  had  obtained  the  consent  of  her 
parliament.  It  was  in  compliance  with  his  wish  that 
she  suffered  the  archbishop  to  officiate  according  to 
the  established  form  at  the  funeral  of  her  brother  in 
Westminster  Abbey;  but  a solemn  dirge  and  high 
mass  were  chanted  for  him  at  the  same  time  in  the 
chapel  of  the  Tower,  in  the  presence  of  the  nobility 
and  courtiers,  to  the  number  of  three  hundred  per- 
sons.1 She  issued  no  order  for  the  public  restoration 
of  the  ancient  service ; but  she  maintained  that  she 
had  a right  to  worship  God  as  she  pleased  within  her 
own  palace ; and  was  highly  gratified  by  the  com- 
pliance of  those  who  followed  her  example.  The 
proceedings  against  the  bishops,  deprived  in  the  last 
reign,  were  revised  and  reversed  in  a new  court  of 
delegates,  held  by  the  royal  authority ; and  Gardiner, 
Bonner,  Tunstall,  Heath,  and  Day  recovered  the  pos- 
session of  their  respective  sees.  The  real  object  of 
the  queen  could  not  remain  a secret;  the  reformed 
1 Noailles,  108,  129.  Griffet,  xi.  Non  se  trop  haster  avec  zele — 
mais  qu’elle  s’accommode  avec  toute  douceur  se  conformant  aux  de- 
finitions du  parlement,  sans  rien  faire  toutefois  de  sa  personne  qui 
soit  contre  sa  conscience,  ayant  seulement  la  messe  a part  en  sa 
chambre — qu’elle  attende  jusques  elle  aye  opportunity  de  rassembler 
parlement. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  24. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


July  2i. 


August  8. 


398 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553- 


August  12. 


August  13. 


August  14. 


August  18. 


preachers  from  the  pulpit  alarmed  the  zeal  of  their 
hearers ; and  the  Catholic  clergy,  trusting  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  sovereign,  feared  not  to  transgress  the 
existing  laws.  A riot  was  occasioned  by  the  unau- 
thorized celebration  of  mass  in  a church  in  the  horse- 
market.  The  council  reprimanded  and  imprisoned 
the  priest ; and  the  queen,  sending  for  the  lord 
mayor  and  aldermen,  ordered  them  to  put  down  all 
tumultuous  assemblies.  But  the  passions  of  the  re- 
formers had  been  excited ; and  the  very  next  day  the 
peace  of  the  metropolis  was  interrupted  by  another 
ebullition  of  religious  animosity.  Bourne,  one  of  the 
royal  chaplains,  had  been  appointed  to  preach  at  St. 
Paul’s  Cross.  In  the  course  of  his  sermon  he  com- 
plained of  the  late  innovations,  and  of  the  illegal 
deprivation  of  the  Catholic  prelates.  “ Pull  him 
“ down/’  suddenly  exclaimed  a voice  in  the  crowd. 
The  cry  was  echoed  by  several  groups  of  women 
and  children ; and  a dagger,  thrown  with  considerable 
violence,  struck  one  of  the  columns  of  the  pulpit. 
Bourne,  alarmed  for  his  life,  withdrew  into  St.  Paul’s 
church,  under  the  protection  of  Bradford  and  Rogers, 
two  of  the  reformed  preachers. 

This  outrage,  evidently  preconcerted,  injured  the 
cause  which  it  was  designed  to  serve.  It  furnished 
Mary  with  a pretext  to  forbid,  after  the  example  of 
the  two  last  monarchs,  preaching  in  public  without 
license.  The  citizens  were  made  responsible  for  the 
conduct  of  their  children  and  servants ; and  the  lord 
mayor  was  told  to  resign  the  sword  into  the  hands  of 
the  sovereign,  if  he  were  unable  to  maintain  the  peace 
of  the  city.1  A proclamation  followed,  in  which  the 

1 Journal  of  council  in  Archasologia,  xviii.  173,  174.  Haynes,  i. 
168 — 170. 


ELIZABETH  CONFORMS. 


399 


queen  declared  that  she  could  not  conceal  her  religion, 
which  God  and  the  world  knew  that  she  had  professed 
from  her  infancy;  hut  she  had  no  intention  to  compel 
any  one  to  embrace  it  till  further  order  were  taken  by 
common  consent ; and  therefore  she  strictly  forbade 
all  persons  to  excite  sedition  among  the  people,  or  to 
foment  dissension  by  using  the  opprobrious  terms  of 
heretic  or  papist.1 

The  reformers  now  fixed  their  hopes  on  the  con- 
stancy of  the  lady  Elizabeth,  the  presumptive  heir  to 
the  throne.  They  already  considered  her  as  the  rival 
of  the  queen ; and  it  was  openly  said  that  it  would 
not  be  more  difficult  to  transfer  the  sceptre  to  her 
hands,  than  it  had  been  to  place  it  in  those  of  Mary. 
On  this  account  it  had  been  proposed  by  some  of  the 
royal  advisers,  as  a measure  of  precaution,  to  put 
Elizabeth  under  a temporary  arrest;  but  Mary  re- 
fused her  assent,  and  rather  sought  to  weaken  her 
sisters  interest  with  the  reformers,  by  withdrawing 
her  from  the  new  to  the  ancient  worship.  Eor  some 
time  the  princess  resisted  every  attempt ; but  when 
she  learned  that  her  repugnance  was  thought  to  arise, 
not  from  motives  of  conscience,  but  from  the  per- 
suasions of  the  factious,  she  solicited  a private  audi- 
ence, threw  herself  on  her  knees,  and  excused  her 
past  obstinacy,  on  the  ground  that  she  had  never 
practised  any  other  than  the  reformed  worship,  nor 
ever  studied  the  articles  of  the  ancient  faith.  Per- 
haps, if  she  were  furnished  with  books,  and  aided  by 
the  instructions  of  divines,  she  might  see  her  errors, 
and  embrace  the  religion  of  her  fathers.  After  this 
beginning,  the  reader  will  not  be  surprised  to  learn 
that  her  conversion  was  effected  in  the  short  course 
1 Wilk.  Con.  iv.  86. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A-D-  1553- 


Sept.  2. 


400 


MARY. 


chap,  of  a week.  Mary  now  treated  her  with  extraordinary 
a.d.  '1553.  kindness ; and  Elizabeth,  to  prove  her  sincerity,  not 
Sept” 8 onty  accompanied  her  sister  to  mass,  but  opened  a 

Dec.  2.  chapel  in  her  own  house,  and  wrote  to  the  emperor 
for  leave  to  purchase,  in  Flanders,  a chalice,  cross, 
and  the  ornaments  usually  employed  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Catholic  worship.1 

But  the  Protestant  cause  was  consoled  for  the 
defection  of  Elizabeth  by  the  zeal  of  the  archbishop. 
Cranmer  had  hitherto  experienced  the  lenity  of  the 
queen.  Though  he  had  been  the  author  of  her 
mother’s  divorce,  and  one  of  the  last  to  abandon  the 
conspiracy  of  Northumberland,  he  had  not  been  sent 
to  the  Tower,  but  received  an  order  to  confine  him- 
self to  his  palace  at  Lambeth.  In  this  retirement  he 
had  leisure  to  mourn  over  the  failure  of  his  hopes,  and 
to  anticipate  the  abolition  of  that  worship  which  he 
had  so  earnestly  laboured  to  establish.  But,  to  add 
to  his  affliction,  intelligence  was  brought  to  him-  that 
the  Catholic  service  had  been  performed  in  his  church 
at  Canterbury ; that  by  strangers  this  innovation  was 
supposed  to  have  been  made  by  his  order  or  with  his 
consent ; and  that  a report  was  circulated  of  his 
having  offered  to  celebrate  mass  before  the  queen. 
Cranmer  hastened  to  refute  these  charges  by  a public 
denial ; and  in  a declaration  which,  while  its  boldness 
does  honour  to  his  courage,  betrays  by  its  asperity 
the  bitterness  of  his  feelings,  asserted  that  the  mass 
was  the  device  and  invention  of  the  father  of  lies,, 
who  was  even  then  persecuting  Christ,  his  holy  word, 
and  his  church ; that  it  was  not  he,  the  archbishop, 
but  a false,  flattering,  lying,  and  deceitful  monk,  who 

1 Compare  the  despatches  of  Noailles,  138,  14 1,  rf>o,  with  those 
of  Renard  in  GrifFet,  xi.  xxiv. 


POLE  APPOINTED  LEGATE. 


401 


had  restored  the  ancient  worship  at  Canterbury ; that 
he  had  never  offered  to  say  mass  before  the  queen, 
but  was  willing,  with  her  permission,  to  show  that  it 
contained  many  horrible  blasphemies ; and,  with  the 
aid  of  Peter  Martyr,  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  and 
worship  established  nnder  Edward  was  the  same  which 
had  been  believed  and  practised  in  the  first  ages  of 
the  Christian  church.1  Of  this  intemperate  declara- 
tion several  copies  were  dispersed,  and  publicly  read 
to  the  people  in  the  streets.  The  council  sent  for  the 
archbishop,  and  “after  a long  and  serious  debate  com- 
“ mitted  him  to  the  Tower,  as  well  for  the  treason 
“ committed  by  him  against  the  queen’s  highness,  as 
“ for  the  aggravating  the  same  his  offence  by  spread- 
“ ing  abroad  seditious  bills,  and  moving  tumults  to 
“ the  disquietness  of  the  present  state.”  A few  days 
afterwards,  Latimer,  who  probably  had  imitated  the 
conduct  of  the  metropolitan,  was  also  sent  to  the 
same  prison  for  “ his  seditious  demeanour.”2 

To  Julius  III.,  the  Eoman  pontiff,  the  accession  of 
Mary  had  been  a subject  of  triumph.  Eoreseeing  the 
result,  he  immediately  appointed  Cardinal  Pole  his 
legate  to  the  queen,  the  emperor,  and  the  king  of 
Prance.  But  Pole  hesitated  to  leave  his  retirement 
at  Magguzzano,  on  the  margin  of  the  lake  of  Guarda, 
without  more  satisfactory  information ; and  Dandino, 
the  legate  at  Brussels,  despatched  to  England  a 
gentleman  of  his  suite,  Gianfrancesco  Commendone, 
chamberlain  to  the  pontiff.  Commendone  came  from 
Gravelines  to  London  in  the  character  of  a stranger, 
whose  uncle  was  lately  dead,  leaving  accounts  of  im- 
portance unsettled  in  England.  For  some  days  he 

1 Strype’s  Cranmer,  305. 

2 Journal  of  Council  in  Archseol.  xviii.  175.  Haynes,  i.  183,  184. 

YOL.  Y.  2D 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


Sept.  8. 


Sept.  13. 


402 


MARY. 


chap,  wandered  unknown  through  the  streets,  carefully  no- 
a.d.  1553.  ticing  whatever  he  saw  or  heard;  till  chance  brought 
him  into  the  company  of  an  old  acquaintance  of  the 
name  of  Lee,  then  a servant  in  the  royal  household. 
Through  him  Commendone  procured  more  than  one 
interview  with  Mary,  and  carried  from  her  the  fol- 
Aug.  25.  lowing  message  to  the  pope  and  the  cardinal : that  it 
was  her  most  anxious  wish  to  see  her  kingdom  recon- 
ciled with  the  Holy  See;  that  for  this  purpose  she 
meant  to  procure  the  repeal  of  all  laws  trenching  on 
the  doctrine  or  discipline  of  the  Catholic  church ; 
that  on  the  other  hand  she  hoped  to  experience  no 
obstacle  on  the  part  of  the  pontiff,  or  of  her  kinsman 
the  papal  representative  ; and  that  for  the  success  of 
the  undertaking  it  would  be  necessary  to  act  with 
temper  and  prudence;  to  respect  the  prejudices  of 
her  subjects  ; and  most  carefully  to  conceal  the  least 
trace  of  any  correspondence  between  her  and  the 
court  of  Home.1 

Such  was  the  situation  of  affairs  when  Mary  met 
Oct.  5.  her  first  parliament.2  Both  peers  and  commoners, 
according  to  the  usage  of  ancient  times,  accompanied 
their  sovereign  to  a solemn  mass  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
the  chancellor  in  his  speech  to  the  houses,  the  speaker 
in  his  address  to  the  throne,  celebrated  the  piety,  the 
clemency,  and  the  other  virtues  of  their  sovereign ; 


1 Pallavicino,  ii.  397.  Quirini’s  Collection  of  Pole’s  Letters,  iv. 
hi. 

2 Burnet  has  fallen  into  two  errors,  with  respect  to  this  parlia- 
ment : 1st.  That  Nowel,  representative  for  Loo,  in  Cornwall,  was 
not  allowed  to  sit,  because,  being  a clergyman,  he  was  represented 
in  the  convocation,  whereas  the  reason  stated,  is,  that  he  had  a voice 
in  the  convocation. — Journals,  27.  2nd.  That  the  lords  altered  the 
bill  of  tonnage  and  poundage.  They  objected,  indeed,  to  two  pro- 
visoes ; but  the  Commons,  instead  of  allowing  them  to  be  altered, 
withdrew  the  old,  and  introduced  a new  bill. — Journals,  28,  29. 


MARYS  FIRST  PARLIAMENT. 


• 403 


and  her  ears  were  repeatedly  greeted  with  the  loudest 
expressions  of  loyalty  and  attachment.  The  two 
objects,  which  at  this  moment  she  had  principally  at 
heart,  were  to  remove  from  herself  the  stain  of  ille- 
gitimacy, and  to  restore  to  its  former  ascendancy  the 
religion  of  her  fathers.  To  the  first  she  anticipated 
no  objection;  the  second  was  an  attempt  of  more 
doubtful  result  ; not  that  her  subjects,  in  general, 
were  opposed  to  the  ancient  worship,  but  that  they 
expressed  a strong  antipathy  to  the  papal  jurisdiction. 
The  new  service  was,  indeed,  everywhere  established ; 
but  it  had  been  embraced  through  compulsion  rather 
than  conviction.  Men  felt  for  it  little  of  that 
attachment,  with  which  spontaneous  proselytes  are 
always  inspired.  Only  four  years  had  elapsed  since 
its  introduction ; and  their  former  habits,  preposses- 
sions, and  opinions  pleaded  in  favour  of  a worship 
with  which  they  had  been  familiarized  from  their 
infancy.  But  the  supremacy  of  the  pontiff  appeared 
to  them  in  a different  light.  Its  exercise  in  England 
had  been  abolished  for  thirty  years.  The  existing 
generation  knew  no  more  of  the  pope,  his  pretensions, 
or  his  authority,  than  what  they  had  learned  from  his 
adversaries.  His  usurpation  and  tyranny  had  been 
the  favourite  theme  of  the  preachers,  and  the  re- 
establishment of  his  jurisdiction  had  always  been  de- 
scribed to  them  as  the  worst  evil  which  could  befal 
their  country.  In  addition,  it  was  said  and  believed, 
that  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  property  was 
essentially  connected  with  the  recognition  of  the  papal 
authority.  If  the  spoils  of  the  church  had  been  at 
first  confined  to  a few  favourites  and  purchasers,  they 
were  now  become,  by  sales  and  bequests,  divided  and 
subdivided  among  thousands ; and  almost  every  family 

2 D 2 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


404 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A-D-  I553- 


Oct.  io. 


Oct.  21. 


of  opulence  in  the  kingdom  had  reason  to  deprecate 
a measure,  which,  according  to  the  general  opinion, 
would  induce  the  compulsive  surrender  of  the  whole, 
or  of  a part  of  its  possessions. 

By  the  council  it  was  at  first  determined  to  attempt 
both  objects  by  a most  comprehensive  bill,  which 
should  repeal  at  once  all  the  acts  that  had  been  passed 
in  the  two  last  reigns,  affecting  either  the  marriage 
between  the  queen’s  father  and  mother,  or  the  exercise 
of  religion  as  it  stood  in  the  first  year  of  Henry  VIII. 
By  the  peers  no  objection  was  made ; but,  during  the 
progress  of  the  bill  through  the  upper  house,  it  be- 
came the  general  subject  of  conversation,  and  was 
condemned  as  an  insidious  attempt  to  restore  the 
authority  of  the  pope.  The  ministers  felt  alarmed  at 
the  opposition  which  was  already  organized  among 
the  Commons;  and  the  queen,  coming  unexpectedly 
to  the  house  of  Lords,  gave  the  royal  assent  to  three 
bills  (the  only  bills  which  had  been  passed),  and  pro- 
rogued the  parliament  for  the  space  of  three  days.1 

In  the  succeeding  session  two  new  bills  were  in- 
troduced, in  the  place  of  the  former ; one  confirming 
the  marriage  of  Henry  and  Catherine,  the  other  regu- 
lating the  national  worship.  In  the  first  all  reference 
to  the  papal  dispensation  was  dexterously  avoided. 
It  stated  that,  after  the  queen’s  father  and  mother 
had  lived  together  in  lawful  matrimony  for  the  space 
of  twenty  years,  unfounded  scruples  and  projects  of 

1 Historians  have  indulged  in  fanciful  conjectures  to  account  for 
the  shortness  of  the  session.  The  true  reason  may  be  discovered  in 
Mary’s  letter  to  Cardinal  Pole  of  the  28th  of  October.  Plus  diffi- 
cultatis  fit  circa  auctoritatem  sedis  apostolicse  quam  verse  religionis 

cultum siquidem  primus  ordo  comitiorum  existimaverat  con- 

sultum  ut  omnia  statu ta abrogarentur Cum  vero  hsec  deli- 
berate secundo  ordini  comitiorum  innotuisset,  statim  suspicatus  est 
hajc  proponi  in  gratiam  pontificis,  &c. — Quirini,  iv.  119. 


ENACTMENTS  RESPECTING  RELIGION. 


405 


divorce  had  been  suggested  to  the  king  by  interested 
individuals,  who,  to  accomplish  their  design,  procured 
in  their  favour  the  seals  of  foreign  universities  by 
bribery,  and  of  the  national  universities  by  intrigues 
and  threats ; and  that  Thomas,  then  newly  made 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  most  ungodlily,  and  against 
all  rules  of  equity  and  conscience,  took  upon  himself 
to  pronounce,  in  the  absence  of  the  queen,  a judgment 
of  divorce,  which  was  afterwards,  on  two  occasions, 
confirmed  by  parliament ; but  that,  as  the  said  mar- 
riage was  not  prohibited  by  the  law  of  God,  it  could 
not  be  dissolved  by  any  such  authority  : wherefore,  it 
enacted  th&t  all  statutes  confirmatory  of  the  divorce 
should  be  repealed,  and  the  marriage  between  Henry 
and  Catherine  should  be  adjudged  to  stand  with  God’s 
law,  and  should  be  reputed  of  good  effect  and  validity, 
to  all  intents  Sind  purposes  whatsoever.  Against  this 
bill,  though  it  was  equivalent  to  a statute  of  bastardy 
in  respect  of  Elizabeth,  not  a voice  was  raised  in 
either  house  of  parliament.1 

The  next  motion  was  so  framed  as  to  elude  the 
objections  of  those  who  were  hostile  to  the  preten- 
sions of  the  see  of  Eome.  It  had  no  reference  to  the 
alienation  of  church  property ; it  trenched  not  on  the 
ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  the  crown ; it  professed  to 
have  no  other  object  than  to  restore  religion  to  that 
state  in  which  Edward  found  it  on  his  accession,  and 
to  repeal  nine  acts  passed  through  the  influence  of  a 
faction  during  his  minority.  The  opposition  was  con- 
fined to  the  lower  house,  in  which,  on  the  second 
reading,  the  debate  continued  two  days.  But,  though 
the  friends  of  the  new  doctrines  are  said  to  have 

1 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  200.  Sine  scrupulo  aut  difficultate.  Mary 
to  Pole,  Nov.  15th,  Quirini,  iv.  122. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553 


Oct.  28. 


406 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


Nov.  8. 


amounted  to  one-third  of  the  members,  the  bill  passed, 
apparently  without  a division.1  By  it  was  at  once 
razed  to  the  ground  that  fabric  which  the  ingenuity 
and  perseverance  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  had  erected 
in  the  last  reign  ; the  reformed  liturgy,  which  Edward’s 
parliament  had  attributed  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  was  now  pronounced  “ a new  thing, 
“ imagined  and  devised  by  a few  of  singular  opinions  ;* 
the  acts  establishing  the  first  and  second  books  of 
common  prayer,  the  new  ordinal,  and  the  administra- 
tion of  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds,  that  authorizing 
the  marriages  of  priests,  and  legitimating  their  chil- 
dren, and  those  abolishing  certain  festivals  and  fasts, 
vesting  in  the  king  the  appointment  of  bishops  by 
letters  patent,  and  regulating  the  exercise  of  the 
episcopal  jurisdiction,  were  repealed  ; and,  in  lieu 
thereof,  it  was  enjoined  that  from  the  twentieth  day 
of  the  next  month  should  be  revived  and  practised 
such  forms  of  divine  worship  and  administration  of 
sacraments,  as  had  been  most  commonly  used  in 
England  in  the  last  year  of  Henry  VIII.2 

By  other  bills  passed  in  this  parliament,  all  bonds,, 
deeds,  and  writings,  between  individuals,  bearing  date 
during  the  short  usurpation  of  the  lady  Jane,  were 
made  as  good  and  effectual  in  law,  as  if  the  name  of 
the  rightful  sovereign  had  been  expressed;  and  all 
treasons  created  since  the  twenty-fifth  of  Edward  III., 
with  all  new  felonies  and  cases  of  premunire,  intro- 
duced since  the  first  of  Henry  VIII.,  were  abolished ; 

1 Noailles  says,  Ce  qui  a demeure  huict  jours  en  merveilleuse  dis- 
pute : et  n’a  S9eu  passer  ce  bill,  que  la  tierce  partie  de  ceulx  du  tiers 
estat  ne  soyent  demeurez  de  contraire  opinion. — Noailles,  ii.  247. 
Yet  the  journals  mention  no  division. — Journals,  29. 

2 Quod  non  sine  contentione,  disputatione  acri  et  summo  labore 
fidelium  factum  est. — Mary  to  Pole.  Quirini,  iv.  122. 


PROJECT  OF  MARRIAGE. 


407 


bat  at  the  same  time  the  statute  of  Edward  YI.  CHAJ>- 
against  riotous  assemblies  was  in  part  revived,  and  A-D-  I5S3- 
extended  to  such  meetings  as  should  have  for  their 
object  to  change,  by  force,  the  existing  laws  in  matters 
of  religion.  To  these  must  be  added  several  private 
bills  restoring  in  blood  those  persons  who  had  been 
deprived  of  their  hereditary  rights  by  the  iniquitous 
judgments  passed  in  Henry’s  reign,1  and  one  of 
severity,  attainting  the  authors  and  chief  abettors  of 
the  late  conspiracy  to  exclude  the  queen  from  the 
succession.  It  was,  however,  limited  to  the  persons 
whose  condemnation  has  been  already  mentioned, 
and  to  Thomas,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Guilford 
Dudley,  “ Jane  Dudley  his  wife,”  and  Sir  Ambrose 
Dudley,  who  had  been  arraigned  and  convicted  on 
their  own  confessions  during  the  sitting  of  parliament. 

Mary  had  no  intention  that  they  should  suffer ; but 
she  hoped  that  the  knowledge  of  their  danger  would 
secure  the  loyalty  of  their  friends ; and,  when  she 
signed  the  pardon  of  Northampton  and  Gates,  gave 
orders  that  the  other  prisoners  should  receive  every 
indulgence  compatible  with  their  situation.2 

But  that  which,  during  the  sitting  of  the  parlia- 
ment, chiefly  interested  and  agitated  the  public  mind, 
was  the  project  of  marriage  between  Mary,  and  Philip 
of  Spain.  The  court  was  divided  into  two  factions. 

At  the  head  of  the  imperialists  were  the  earl  of 
Arundel,  the  lord  Paget,  and  Rochester,  comptroller 
of  the  household,  all  three  high  in  the  favour  of  the 
queen : they  were  still  opposed  by  Gardiner,  the 
chancellor,  who,  though  he  received  but  little  support 
from  the  timidity  of  his  colleagues  in  the  council,  was 

1 See  note  (F). 

3 Stat.  iv.  217.  Journal  of  Council,  Archseologia,  xviii.  17 6. 


408 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D.  1553. 


in  public  seconded  by  the  voices  of  the  more  clamor- 
ous, if  not  the  more  numerous,  portion  of  the  people. 
Protestants  and  Catholics,  postponing  their  religious 
animosities,  joined  in  reprobating  a measure  which 
would  place  a foreign  and  despotic  prince  on  the 
English  throne ; and  eagerly  wished  for  the  arrival 
of  Pole,  whom  rumour  described  as  an  enemy  to  the 
Spanish  match,  and  who  was  believed  to  possess  con- 
siderable influence  over  the  royal  mind.1  But  their 
expectations  were  disappointed  by  the  policy  of  their 
adversaries,  who  predicted  to  Mary  that  the  presence 
of  a papal  legate  would  prove  the  signal  of  a religious 
war,  and  at  the  same  time  alarmed  the  emperor  with 
the  notion  that  Pole  was  in  reality  u competitor  with 
Philip  for  the  hand  of  their  sovereign.2  The  former 
wrote  to  the  cardinal  not  to  venture  nearer  than 
Brussels ; the  latter  commissioned  Mendoza  to  stop 
him  in  the  heart  of  Germany.  At  the  instance  of 
that  messenger  he  returned  to  Dillinghen,  on  the 
Danube,  where  he  received  an  order  from  the  pontiff 
to  suspend  the  prosecution  of  his  journey  till  he 
should  receive  further  instructions.3 

It  was  a more  difficult  task  to  detect  and  defeat  the 
intrigues  of  Noailles,  the  French  ambassador.  That 
minister,  urged  by  his  antipathy  to  the  Spanish,  cause, 
hesitated  not  to  disobey  the  commands  of  his  sove- 
reign,4 and  to  abuse  the  privileges  of  his  office.  He 

1 Y est  il  plus  deman  de  que  je  n’eusse  jamais  pense,  le  desirans 
mainctenant  tant  les  protestants  que  catholiques. — Noailles,  271. 

3 Noailles,  244.  Griffet,  xviii. 

3 Pallavicino,  ii.  403. 

4 Je  vous  prie,  Mons.  de  Noailles,  comme  ja  je  vous  ay  escript, 
fermer  du  tout  les  oreilles  a tous  ces  gens  passionez,  qui  vous  met- 
tent  partis  en  avant. — The  king  to  Noailles,  Nov.  9th,  p.  249.  I 
suspect,  however,  that  this  was  written  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
being  shown  to  the  queen,  if  events  should  render  it  necessary,  for 


INTRIGUES  OF  NOAILLES. 


409 


connected  himself  with  Courtenay,  with  the  leaders  of 
the  Protestants,  and  with  the  discontented  of  every 
description  ; he  admitted  them  to  midnight  confer- 
ences in  his  house ; he  advised  them  to  draw  the 
sword  for  the  protection  of  their  liberties  ; he  raised 
their  hopes  with  the  prospects  of  aid  from  France ; 
and  he  sought  by  statements,  often  false,  always 
exaggerated,  to  draw  from  Henry  himself  a public 
manifestation  of  his  hostility  to  the  intended  mar- 
riage.1 

The  Commons,  at  the  commencement  of  the  second 
session,  had  been  induced  to  vote  an  address  to  the 
queen,  in  which  they  prayed  her  to  marry,  that  she 
might  raise  up  successors  to  the  throne,  but  to  select 
her  husband  not  from  any  foreign  family,  but  from 
the  nobility  of  her  own  realm.  Noailles,  who  in  his 
despatches  predicted  the  most  beneficial  results  from 
this  measure,  took  to  himself  the  whole  of  the  merit.2 
Mary,  on  the  other  hand,  attributed  it  to  the  secret 
influence  of  Gardiner,  who,  having  been  outnumbered 
in  the  cabinet,  sought  to  fortify  himself  with  the  aid 
of  the  Commons.  But  the  queen  had  inherited  the 
resolution  or  obstinacy  of  her  father.  Opposition 
might  strengthen,  it  could  not  shake  her  purpose. 
She  declared  that  she  would  prove  a match  for  all 

the  exculpation  of  Henry;  for  that  prince,  on  Jan.  26,  orders  him 
to  do  exactly  the  contrary.  II  fauldra  conforter  soubz  main  les  con- 
ducteurs  des  entreprises  que  scavez,  le  plus  dextrement  que  faire  se 
pourra  : et  s’eslargir  plus  ouvertment  et  franchement  parler  avecques 
eulx  que  n’avez  encores  fait:  en  maniere  qu’ilz  mettent  la  main  a 
l’ceuvre  (iii.  36). 

1 This  is  evident  from  many  of  his  despatches,  p.  228,  302. 

2 Noailles,  ii.  233.  The  emperor  also  attributed  the  address  to 
Gardiner,  and  therefore  wrote  to  Renard,  Puisque  vous  cognoissez 
les  desseigns  du  chancellier  tendre  a continuer  sa  pratique  pour  Cour- 
teney, tant  plus  est  il  requis,  que  soyez  soigneux  ala  contreminer,  et 
lui  gagner,  si  faire  se  peult,  la  volonte. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  89. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A-D-  *553* 


Oct.  30. 


410 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1553. 
Oct.  30. 


Nov.  9. 


the  cunning  of  the  chancellor  ;l  and,  sending  the  very- 
same  night  for  the  imperial  ambassador,  bade  him 
follow  her  into  her  private  oratory,  where,  on  her  knees 
at  the  foot  of  the  altar,  and  before  the  sacrament,  she 
first  recited  the  hymn  Yeni  Creator  Spiritus,  and  then 
called  God  to  witness  that  she  pledged  her  faith  to 
Philip  prince  of  Spain,  and  while  she  lived  would 
never  take  any  other  man  for  her  husband.2 

Though  this  rash  and  uncalled-for  promise  was  kept 
a profound  secret,  the  subsequent  language  of  the 
queen  proved  to  the  courtiers  that  she  had  taken 
her  final  resolution.  The  young  earl  of  Devon,  fallen 
from  his  hopes,  abandoned  himself  to  the  guidance  of 
his  interested  advisers.  He  was  under  the  strongest 
obligations  to  Mary.  She  had  liberated  him  from  the 
prison  to  which  he  had  been  confined  from  his  infancy 
by  the  jealousy  of  her  father  and  brother  ; she  had 
restored  him  to  the  forfeited  honours  and  property  of 
his  family ; and  she  had  constantly  treated  him  with 
distinction  above  all  the  nobility  at  her  court.  Inex- 
perience may  be  pleaded  in  extenuation  of  his  fault ; 
but,  if  gratitude  be  a duty,  he  ought  to  have  been  the 
last  person  to  engage  in  a conspiracy  against  his  bene- 
factress. Yet  he  listened  to  those  who  called  them- 
selves his  friends,  and  urged  him  to  the  most  criminal 
attempts.  They  proposed  to  commence  with  the 
murder  of  Arundel  and  Paget,  the  most  powerful 
among  the  partisans  of  Philip.  Perhaps  if  they  were 
removed,  fear  or  persuasion  might  induce  Mary  to 
accept  the  offer  of  Courtenay.  Should  she  remain 
obstinate,  he  might,  in  defiance  of  her  authority,  marry 
Elizabeth,  and  repair  with  her  to  Devonshire  and 
Cornwall,  where  the  inhabitants  were  devoted  to  his 
1 Griffet,  xxviii.  • 3 Ibid.  xx. 


Courtenay’s  conspiracy. 


411 


family ; and  he  would  find  the  duke  of  Suffolk,  the 
earl  of  Pembroke,  many  other  lords,  and  every  naval 
and  military  adventurer  ready  to  join  his  standard.1 
But  the  discipline  of  the  Tower  was  not  calculated 
to  impart  to  the  mind  that  energy  of  character,  that 
intrepidity  in  the  hour  of  trial,  which  becomes  a con- 
spirator. Courtenay  had  issued  from  his  prison  timid 
and  cautious  ; though  his  ambition  might  applaud  the 
scheme  of  his  friends,  he  had  not  the  courage  to  exe- 
cute it ; and  a new  plan  was  devised,  that  he  should 
take  the  horses  from  the  royal  stables  at  Greenwich, 
as  he  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  for  his  pleasure,  should 
ride  to  an  appointed  place,  embark  in  a vessel  lying 
in  the  river,  and  cross  the  sea  to  Prance ; that  the 
same  night  his  adherents  should  assassinate  Arundel 
and  Paget,  and  hasten  into  Devonshire ; and  that  the 
earl  should  rejoin  them  in  that  county  as  soon  as  cir- 
cumstances might  require.2  But  Noailles,  aware  that 
the  flight  of  Courtenay  would  compromise  his  sove- 
reign, opposed  the  project  under  pretence  that,  the  mo- 
ment he  left  the  shores  of  England,  he  might  bid  adieu 
to  the  English  crown.  Other  plans  were  suggested  and 
discussed ; but  the  timidity  of  the  earl  checked  the 
eagerness  of  his  advisers  ; he  gladly  took  hold  of  some 
circumstances  to  conceive  new  expectations  of  the 
royal  favour,  and  prevailed  on  his  friends  to  suspend 
their  efforts,  till  they  were  better  apprized  of  the 
final  determination  of  Mary.3 

1 Noailles,  ii.  246,  254.  L’entreprinze  est  de  vouloir  faire 
espouser  audit  de  Courtenay  madame  Elizabeth,  et  l’enlever  et  em- 

mener  au  pays  de  Dampchier  (Devonshire)  et  de  Cornuailles ; 

les  dues  de  Suffolk,  comtes  de  Pembroug  et  de  Combrelant,  millord 
Clynton,  et  plusieurs  des  grands  seigneurs,  seront  de  ce  party. — 
Id.  ii.  246.  He  was  mistaken  as  to  all  except  the  duke  of  Suffolk. 

2 Noailles,  ii.  258. 

3 Id.  271.  On  Dec.  1 Noailles  informs  his  court,  that  though 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1553. 


Nov.  17. 


Nov.  24. 


412 


MARY. 


chap.  In  the  beginning  of  November  the  queen  had  suf- 
a.d.  1553.  fered  much  from  a malady  to  which  she  was  annually 
subject : after  her  recovery  it  was  believed  that  she 
continued  to  feign  indisposition,  for  the  purpose  of 
postponing  the  unpleasant  task  imposed  on  her  by 
Nov.  1 7.  the  address  of  the  Commons.  But  in  a few  days  she 
sent  for  the  lower  house  : the  speaker  read  the  ad- 
dress ; and,  when  it  was  expected  that  the  chancellor, 
according  to  custom,  would  answer  in  her  name,  she 
herself  replied  : that,  for  their  expressions  of  loyalty, 
and  their  desire  that  the  issue  of  her  body  might  suc- 
ceed her  on  the  throne,  she  sincerely  thanked  them  ; 
but,  in  as  much  as  they  pretended  to  limit  her  in  the 
choice  of  a husband,  she  thanked  them  not.  The 
marriages  of  her  predecessors  had  always  been  free, 
nor  would  she  surrender  a privilege  which  they  had 
enjoyed.  If  it  was  a subject  that  interested  the 
Commons,  it  was  one  that  interested  her  still  more ; 
and  she  would  be  careful  in  her  choice,  not  only  to 
provide  for  her  own  happiness,  but,  which  was  equally 
dear  to  her,  for  the  happiness  of  her  people.  This 
answer  was  received  with  applause,  though  it  disap- 
pointed the  movers  of  the  address.1 

Elizabeth  and  Courtenay  are  proper  instruments  to  cause  a rising, 
there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  nothing  will  be  done,  on  account  of 
Courtenay’s  timidity ; who  probably  will  let  himself  be  taken  before 
he  will  act ; comine  font  ordinairement  les  Anglois,  qui  ne  scavent 
jamais  fuyr  leur  malheur,  ny  prevenir  le  peril  de  leur  vie. — Id.  289. 

1 Noailles,  269.  Griffet,  xxviii.  Notwithstanding  this  reply  of  the 
queen,  Charles  was  still  uneasy  on  acconnt  of  the  decided  opposition 
of  Gardiner.  To  Renard’s  account  of  the  address  of  the  Commons, 
and  of  the  queen’s  answer,  he  replies  : “ Elle  a tres  bien  et  pertine- 
“ ment  repondu,  et  nous  conferme  en  bonne  esperence.  Et  puisque 
<£  vous  cognoissez  let  desseigns  du  chancellier  tendre  a continuer  ses 
“ pratiques  pour  Cortenay,  tant  plus  est  il  requis,  quesoyez  soigneux 
“ a les  contreminer.” — A Bruxelles,  21  Nov.  Renard’s  MSS.  iii.89. 
If  additional  proof  of  Gardiner’s  opposition  be  desired,  it  may  be 
found  in  the  despatches  of  Noailles,  who,  after  the  queen  had  re- 


TREATY  OF  MARRIAGE  WITH  PHILIP.  413 


In  the  meantime  Elizabeth  remained  at  court, 
watched  by  the  imperialists,  and  caressed  by  their 
opponents ; one  day  terrified  by  the  fear  of  a prison, 
and  the  next  day  flattered  with  the  prospect  of  a 
crown.  No  pains  were  spared  to  create  dissension 
between  the  royal  sisters ; to  awaken  jealousy  in  the 
one,  alarm  and  resentment  in  the  other.  But  Eliza- 
beth explained  away  the  charges  against  her,  and 
Mary,  by  her  conduct,  belied  the  predictions  of  her 
enemies.1  If  she  detained  her  sister  at  court  till  the 
dissolution  of  the  parliament,  she  treated  her  with 
kindness  and  distinction ; and  at  her  departure  dis- 
missed her  with  marks  of  affection,  and  a present  of 
two  sets  of  large  and  valuable  pearls.2 

The  emperor,  at  the  suggestion  of  Paget,  had 
written  to  six  of  the  lords  of  the  council  respecting 
the  marriage  of  the  queen,3  and  Gardiner,  convinced 

turned  her  answer  to  the  Commons,  writes  to  his  court  that,  though 
the  cause  of  Courtenay  seems  desperate,  there  still  remains  a slender 
hope  in  the  exertions  of  Gardiner,  who  is  “ homme  de  bien,  et  qui 
“ vouldra  avoir  quelque  regard  a l’utilite  de  ce  royaulme,  sans  se 
“ lasser  tant  aller,  comme  ont  faict  les  aultres  en  leurs  passions  et 
11  affections  particulieres,  et  m’a  l’on  asseure  que  en  luy  seul  reste 
“ encore  quelque  petite  esperence  pour  Courtenay.” — ii.  260.  Again 
on  Dec.  1 he  informs  his  court  “que  ce  chancellier  a tenu  bien  longue- 
“ ment  son  opinion  contraire.” — ii.  297.  Hence  it  is  plain  that 
Gardiner  was  an  obstinate  opponent  of  the  match  in  the  cabinet,  and 
then  only  sought  to  make  it  palatable  and  useful  to  the  nation,  when 
he  found  that  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  prevent  it. 

1 Elizabeth  was  said  to  have  received  nocturnal  visits  from 
Noailles,  which  she  convinced  Mary  to  be  false. — Noailles,  309. 
On  the  other  hand,  she  was  told  that  Mary  meant  to  declare  her  a 
bastard  by  act  of  parliament ; and  she  was  supposed  to  be  in  disgrace, 
because  the  queen  sometimes  gave  the  precedence  in  company  to  the 
countess  of  Lennox  and  the  duchess  of  Suffolk,  the  representatives 
of  her  aunts  the  Scottish  and  French  queens. — Noailles,  234,  273. 

3 Ibid.  309. 

3 On  8th  of  October,  Renard  informed  the  emperor  that  he  was 
on  terms  of  the  most  intimate  confidence  with  Lord  Paget,  who 
advocated  with  all  his  power  the  Spanish  match.  Charles  in  his 
answer  enclosed  a letter  with  his  own  hand  to  Paget ; he  added  one 


CHAP. 

V. 

-D-  1 553- 


Dec.  6. 


414 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan.  2. 


Jan.  12. 


at  length  that  to  oppose  was  fruitless,  consented  to 
negotiate  the  treaty  on  such  terms  as  he  deemed 
requisite  to  secure  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
nation.  The  counts  of  Egmont  and  Lalain,  the  lord 
of  Courrieres,  and  the  sieur  de  Nigry,  arrived  as  am- 
bassadors extraordinary,  and  were  admitted  to  an 
audience  in  presence  of  the  whole  court.  When  they 
offered  to  Mary  the  prince  of  Spain  for  her  husband, 
she  replied  that  it  became  not  a female  to  speak  in 
public  on  so  delicate  a subject  as  her  own  marriage ; 
they  were  at  liberty  to  confer  with  her  ministers,  who 
would  make  known  her  intentions;  but  this  she  would 
have  them  to  bear  in  mind  (fixing  at  the  same  time 
her  eyes  on  the  ring  on  her  finger),  that  her  realm  was 
her  first  husband,  and  that  no  consideration  should 
induce  her  to  violate  that  faith  which  she  had  pledged 
at  the  time  of  her  coronation.1 

The  terms,  which  had  been  already  discussed  be- 
tween the  chancellor  and  the  resident  ambassador, 
were  speedily  settled ; and  it  was  stipulated  that 
immediately  on  the  marriage  Philip  and  Mary  should 
reciprocally  assume  the  styles  and  titles  of  their  re- 
spective dominions ; that  he  should  aid  the  queen  in 
the  government  of  the  realm,  saving  its  laws,  rights, 
privileges,  and  customs,  and  preserving  to  her  the 
full  and  free  disposal  of  all  benefices,  offices,  lands, 
revenues,  and  fruits,  which  should  not  be  granted  to 
any  but  native  subjects  of  the  realm  ; that  he  should 
settle  on  her  a jointure  of  60,000  pounds,  secured  on 
landed  property  in  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  ; that 
the  issue  by  this  marriage  should  succeed  according 


to  Gardiner,  others  to  other  lords,  and  one  without  address  to  be 
delivered  by  the  ambassador  according  to  his  direction. — Vol.  iii. 
f.  60.  1 Griffet,  xxx. 


CONSPIRACY  AGAINST  IT. 


415 


to  law  to  England,  and  the  territories  belonging  to 
the  emperor  in  Burgundy  and  the  Low  Countries,  and 
(failing  Don  Carlos,  the  son  of  Philip,  and  the  issue 
of  Don  Carlos,)  to  the  kingdoms  of  Spain,  Lombardy, 
and  the  two  Sicilies;  and  that  Philip  should  promise 
upon  oath  to  maintain  all  orders  of  men  in  their  rights 
and  privileges,  to  exclude  all  foreigners  from  office 
in  the  English  court ; not  to  carry  the  queen  abroad 
without  her  previous  request,  nor  any  of  her  children 
without  the  consent  of  the  nobility ; not  to  claim  any 
right  to  the  succession  if  he  should  survive  his  con- 
sort ; not  to  take  from  the  kingdom  ships,  ammuni- 
tion, or  jewels  belonging  to  the  crown ; and,  lastly, 
not  to  engage  the  nation  in  the  war  between  his 
father  and  the  French  monarch,  but  to  preserve,  as 
much  as  in  him  lay,  the  peace  between  England  and 
France.1 

As  soon  as  the  treaty  was  signed,  the  chancellor 
explained  the  articles  to  the  lord  mayor  and  aldermen, 
and  displayed  in  an  eloquent  discourse  the  many  and 
valuable  benefits  which  he  anticipated  from  an  union 
between  their  sovereign  and  a prince,  the  apparent 
heir  to  so  many  rich  and  powerful  territories.  The 
death  of  the  queen  without  issue  prevented  the  ac- 
complishment of  his  predictions ; but  he  deserves 
praise  for  the  solicitude  with  which  he  guarded  the 
liberties  of  the  nation  against  the  possible  attempts  of 
a foreign  prince  on  the  throne,  and  to  his  honour  it 
may  be  remarked,  that,  when  Elizabeth  thought  of 
marrying  the  duke  of  Anjb^,  she  ordered  her  ministers 
to  take  this  treaty  negotiated  by  Gardiner  for  the 
model  of  their  own. 

The  official  annunciation  of  the  marriage  provoked 
1 Rym,  xv.  377 — 3Sl- 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan.  14. 


416 


MARY. 


chap,  its  opponents  to  speak  and  act  with  greater  freedom. 
a.d.  *1554.  They  circulated  the  most  incredible  tales,  and  em- 
ployed every  artifice  to  kindle  and  inflame  the  public 
discontent.  One  day  it  was  reported  that  Edward 
was  still  alive ; the  next,  that  an  army  of  eight  thou- 
sand imperialists  was  coming  to  take  possession  of  the 
ports,  the  Tower,  and  the  fleet ; the  private  character 
of  Philip,  and  the  national  character  of  the  Spaniards, 
were  loaded  with  the  imputation  of  every  vice  which 
could  disgrace  a prince  or  a people ; of  Mary  herself 
it  was  said,  that  at  her  accession  she  had  promised 
to  make  no  change  in  religion,  and  to  marry  no 
foreigner,  and  that  now,  as  she  had  broken  her  faith, 
she  had  forfeited  her  right  to  the  crown.  Among  the 
leading  conspirators  some  advised  an  immediate  rising: 
the  more  prudent  objected  the  severity  of  the  wea- 
ther, the  impassable  state  of  the  roads,  and  the  diffi- 
culty of  collecting  their  followers,  or  of  acting  in 
Jau.  15.  concert  in  the  midst  of  winter.  They  finally  deter- 
mined to  wait  for  the  arrival  of  Philip,  who  was 
expected  in  the  spring ; at  the  first  news  of  his  ap- 
proach to  arm  and  oppose  his  landing;  to  many 
Courtenay  to  the  lady  Elizabeth ; to  place  them  under 
the  protection  of  the  natives  of  Devonshire,  and  to 
proclaim  them  king  and  queen  of  England.  Of  any 
previous  affection  between  the  parties  there  appears 
no  evidence ; but  Elizabeth  had  been  taught  that  this 
marriage  was  her  only  resource  against  the  suspicions 
of  Mary  and  the  malice  of  Philip,  and  the  disappoint- 
ment of  Courtenay  induced  him  to  consent  to  a 
measure  which  would  bring  the  crown  once  more 
within  his  grasp.  Noailles  now  flattered  himself  that 
he  shonld  infallibly  reap  the  fruit  of  his  intrigues,  if 
he  could  only  keep  for  a few  days  the  weak  and 


CONDUCT  OF  ELIZABETH. 


417 


vacillating  mind  of  the  earl  firm  to  his  engagements.1 
The  representations  of  the  ambassador  so  wrought  on 
the  king  of  France,  that  he  authorized  him  to  give 
to  the  conspirators  hope  of  assistance,  sent  him  the 
paltry  sum  of  five  thousand  crowns  for  the  relief  of  the 
more  needy,  and  ordered  the  governors  of  his  ports, 
and  the  officers  of  his  navy,  to  furnish  such  aid  and 
countenance  as  might  not  be  deemed  an  open  infrac- 
tion of  the  peace  between  the  two  countries.2 

The  council,  however,  was  not  inattentive  to  the 
intrigues  of  the  ambassador,  or  the  designs  of  the 
factious.  Paget  had  sent  a messenger  to  admonish 
Elizabeth  of  her  duty  to  the  queen,3  and  Gardiner,  in 
a private  conference  with  Courtenay,  extracted  the 
whole  secret  from  his  fears  or  simplicity.4  The  next 

1 Noailles,  iii.  1 6,  17,  18,  22,  23.  Ladicte  dame  Elizabeth  esten 
peyne  d’estre  de  si  pres  esclairee ; ce  qui  n’est  faict  sans  quelque 
raison  ; car  je  vous  puis  asseurer,  sire,  qu’elle  desire  fort  de  se  mettre 
hors  de  tutelle  ; et  a ce  que  j’entends,  il  ne  tiendra  que  au  milord  de 
Courtenay  qu’il  ne  l’epouse,  et  qu’elle  ne  le  suive  jusques  au  pays  de 

Dampchier  (Devonshire), ou  ils  seroient  pour  avoir  une  bonne  part 

a ceste  couronne....Mais  le  malheur  est  tel  que  ledict  de  Courtenay 
est  en  si  grand  craincte  qu’il  n’ose  rien  entreprendre.  Je  ne  veois 
moyen  qui  soit  pour  l’empeschier  sinon  la  faulte  de  cueur  (ii.  310). 

2 Noailles,  iii.  36.  This  was  in  consequence  of  information  car- 
ried by  La  Marque,  a special  messenger,  on  Jan.  15,  who  was 
instructed  to  show  that  the  object  of  the  conspirators  was  to  place 
Elizabeth  and  Courtenay  on  the  throne ; for  which  purpose  they  so- 
licited supplies  of  money  and  arms  from  France.  “ Ils  deliberent 
“ d’eslever  pour  leur  roy  et  royne  milord  de  Courtenay  et  madame 
11  Elizabeth.  Toutesfoyes  les  principaux  autheurs  et  conducteurs  de 
“ cette  entreprinze  craignent  avoir  grant  faulte  d’armes,  artilherye, 
“munytions,  et  argent,  et  suplyent  fort  humblement  le  roy  de  faire 
“ qu’il  y s’interesse. — Noailles,  iii.  23.  In  the  printed  copies  the 
latter  part  is  omitted.  It  occurs  in  the  MS.  i.  273. 

3 It  was  occasioned  by  information  given  by  the  officers  of  her 
household,  that  a stranger,  calling  himself  a pastor  of  the  French 
church,  had,  during  the  last  month,  had  several  conferences  with  her. 
It  was  suspected  that  he  was  an  agent  of  the  disaffected  ; and  a 
motion  was  made  to  confine  the  princess  for  greater  security.  But 
the  queen  would  not  listen  to  it. — Griffet,  xxv. 

4 Noailles,  iii.  31,  43. 

VOL.  V.  2 E 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan.  26. 


418 


MARY. 


chap,  day  the  conspirators  learned  that  they  had  been  be- 
a.d,  1554.  trayed ; yet,  surprised  and  unprepared  as  they  were, 
they  resolved  to  bid  defiance  to  the  royal  authority,  and 
Thomas,  brother  to  the  duke  of  Suffolk,  exclaimed 
that  he  would  put  himself  in  the  place  of  Courtenay, 
and  stake  his  head  against  the  crown.1  They  imme- 
jan.  25.  diately  departed,  the  duke  to  arm  his  tenants  in 
Warwickshire,  Sir  James  Croft  to  raise  the  borderers 
of  Wales,  and  Sir  Thomas  Wyat  to  put  himself  at  the 
head  of  the  discontented  in  Kent ; Courtenay  remained 
near  the  queen,  making  a parade  of  his  loyalty,  but 
mistrusted  and  despised.2  Elizabeth  had  repaired  to 
her  house  at  Ashridge.  But  Ashridge  was  thought  to 
be  too  near  to  the  capital,  and  Sir  James  Croft  begged 
of  her  to  retire  to  the  castle  of  Dunnington.  The 
jan.  26.  very  next  day  a letter  to  her  from  Wyat  recommend- 
ing a removal  to  the  same  place,  was  intercepted  by 
the  government ; and  she  immediately  received  from 
Mary  an  order  or  invitation  in  most  friendly  terms  to 
come  to  the  palace  of  St.  James’s,  where  she  would  be 
right  welcome,  and  in  much  greater  security  than  at 
Ashridge  or  Dunnington  ; a very  intelligible  hint  that 
her  connection  with  the  insurgents  had  been  disco- 
vered.3 She  resolved  to  do  neither  ; and  alleging  as  an 
excuse  the  state  of  her  health,  which  rendered  it  dan- 

1 Qu’il  est  delibere  de  tenir  son  lieu,  qu’il  fault  qu’il  soit  roy  ou 
pendu. — Noailles,  iii.  48.  As  late  as  January  26,  Noailles  writes: 
Toutes  choses,  graces  a Dieu,  sont  enbonchemin  : etbientost  j’espere 
que  vous,  sire,  en  aurez  d’aultres  nouvelles*(iii.  45). 

2 Principalement  pour  ce  qui  par  les  lettres  de  Tambassadeur 

de  France  (some  had  been  intercepted) : l’on  s’apperceu  comme  toute 
la  rebellion  se  faisoit  en  faveur  de  Cortenai,  aucteur  d’icelle,  et  que 
Elizabeth  faisoit  gens  de  guerre  de  son  coustel. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii. 
fol.  287,  289. 

3 J’ai  conseille  a la  dit  dame  pour  incontinant  envoyer  apres 
Elizabeth  pour  la  saisir,  car  je  craine  qu’elle  se  retire. — Renard’s 
MSS.  iii.  fol.  286. 


RISING  OF  THE  CONSPIRATORS. 


419 


gerous  to  travel,  ordered  her  servants  to  fortify  the 
house  and  solicit  the  aid  of  her  friends.1  y 

In  calculating  the  probability  of  success,  the  conspi- 
rators had  been  misled  by  the  late  revolution.  With 
the  exception  of  the  duke  of  Suffolk  and  his  brothers, 
they  reckoned  among  them  no  individual  of  illustrious 
name  or  extensive  influence  ; but  they  had  persuaded 
themselves  that  the  nation  unanimously  condemned 
the  Spanish  match,  and  that  as  public  opinion  had 
recently  driven  Jane,  so  it  would  now,  with  equal 
facility,  drive  Mary  from  the  throne.2  The  experience 
of  a few  days  dispelled  the  illusion,  i.  The  men 
of  Devonshire,  on  whose  attachment  to  the  house  of 

1 At  the  departure  of  the  conspirators,  Elizabeth  left  her  residence 
for  Ashridge,  thirty  miles  further  off. — Noailles,  iii.  44.  Here  Croft 
exhorted  her  to  go  on  to  Dunnington. — Foxe,  iii.  794.  Wyat’s  inter- 
cepted letter  to  the  same  effect  was  acknowledged  by  him  at  his  trial. 
— Howell’s  State  Trials,  i.  863.  Mary’s  letter  to  recall  her  to  London 
is  in  Strype,  iii.  83,  and  Hearne,  154.  That  Elizabeth  fortified  her 
house  at  Ashridge,  and  assembled  armed  men,  is  stated  by  Noailles, 
January  26, — ou,  comme  on  diet,  se  faict  desja  assemblee  de  gens  a 
sa  devotion  (iii.  44)  ; and  by  Renard,  in  his  letter  to  the  emperor  : 
Elizabeth  faisoit  gens  de  guerre — elle  se  fortifie  en  sa  maison,  ou  elle 
est  malade. — Renard’s  MSS.  iii.  fol.  287,  189.  She  was  afterwards 
examined  respecting  her  reasons  for  wishing  to  go  to  Dunnington ; 
at  first  she  affected  not  to  know  that  she  had  such  a house,  or  that 
she  had  ever  spoken  with  any  one  on  the  subject ; but  when  Sir 
James  Croft  was  produced  before  her,  she  said  : “ I do  remember 
“ that  Master  Hobby  and  mine  officers,  and  you,  Sir  James,  had  such 
“ talk  : but  what  is  that  to  the  purpose,  but  that  I may  go  to  mine 
“own  houses  at  all  times  ?”  Sir  James,  after  expressing  his  sorrow 
to  be  a -witness  against  her,  falling  on  his  knees,  said,  “ I take  God 
“ to  record,  before  all  your  honours,  I do  not  know  any  thing  of  that 
“ crime  that  you  have  laid  to  my  charge.” — Foxe  iii.  794.  And  yet, 
Noailles,  in  his  despatch  of  January  23,  reckons  him  among  the  chiefs, 
“ les  entrepreneurs,”  who  were  not  dispirited,  though  their  secret  had 
been  betrayed. — Noailles,  iii.  31.  The  reader  must  excuse  the  length 
and  frequency  of  these  notes.  They  are  necessary  to  support  a 
narrative,  which  might  otherwise  be  attributed  to  the  imagination  or 
the  partiality  of  the  writer. 

z “ The  cause  of  this  insurrection,  as  they  boaste  in  all  these  places, 
“ is  the  Quene’s  mariage  with  the  prince  of  Spaine.” — Earl  of 
Arundel  to  Lord  Shrewsbury,  Jan.  27. 

2 E 2 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


420 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.  I).  1554. 


Courtenay  so  much  reliance  had  been  placed,  were  the 
first  to  undeceive  the  insurgents.  Sir  Peter  Carew, 
with  Gibbs  and  Champernham,  the  appointed  leaders, 
having  waited  in  vain  for  the  arrival  of  the  recreant 
earl,  assembled  the  citizens  of  Exeter,  and  proposed 
to  them  to  sign  an  address  to  the  queen.  It  stated 
that  the  object  of  the  Spaniards,  in  coming  to 
England,  was  to  oppress  the  natives,  to  live  at  free 
quarters,  and  to  violate  the  honour  of  females  ; that 
every  Englishman  was  ready  to  sacrifice  his  life  before 
he  would  submit  to  such  tyranny  ; and  that  they  had 
therefore  taken  up  arms  to  resist  the  landing  of  any 
foreigners  who  should  approach  the  western  coast. 
But  the  people  showed  no  disposition  to  comply ; and, 
on  the  arrival  of  the  earl  of  Bedford,  a few  of  the 
conspirators  were  apprehended,  the  rest  sought  an 
asylum  in  France.  2.  Though  Sir  James  Croft 
reached  his  estates  on  the  borders  of  Wales,  he  was 
closely  followed,  and,  before  he  could  raise  his  tenants, 
was  made  prisoner  in  his  bed.  3.  The  duke  of 
Suffolk  was  equally  unfortunate.  Of  his  disaffection 
no  suspicion  had  been  entertained.  Instead  of  suffer- 
ing with  Northumberland  on  the  scaffold,  he  had  been 
permitted,  after  a detention  of  only  three  da}^s  in  the 
Tower,  to  retire  to  his  own  house  : the  clemency  of 
the  queen  had  preserved  him  from  the  forfeiture  of 
his  property  and  honours ; his  duchess  had  been 
received  at  court  with  a distinction  which  excited  the 
jealousy  of  Elizabeth  ; and  Suffolk  himself  had  given 
to  Mary  repeated  assurances  of  his  attachment  to  her 
person,  and  of  his  approbation  of  her  marriage.  But, 
under  these  appearances,  he  concealed  far  different 
sentiments.  A precisian  in  point  of  religion,  a disci- 
ple of  the  most  stern  and  uncompromising  among  the 


RISING  OF  WYAT. 


421 


reformed  teachers,  he  deemed  it  a duty  to  risk  his 
life,  and  the  fortune  of  his  family,  in  the  support  of 
the  new  doctrines.  With  his  brothers,  the  lords  John 
and  Thomas  Gfrey,  and  fifty  followers,  he  left  Shene 
for  his  estates  in  Warwickshire.  To  me,  it  seems  un- 
certain whether  he  meant,  with  the  other  conspirators, 
to  set  up  the  lady  Elizabeth  as  the  competitor  of 
Mary,  or  to  revive  the  claim  of  his  daughter,  the  lady 
Jane,1  In  the  towns  through  which  he  passed  he 
called  on  the  inhabitants  to  rise,  like  their  brethren 
in  the  south,  and  to  arm  in  defence  of  their  liberties, 
which  had  been  betrayed  to  the  Spaniards.  They 
listened  with  apathy  to  his  eloquence,  and  refused  the 
money  which  he  scattered  among  them : the  earl  of 
Huntingdon,  once  his  fellow-prisoner  in  the  Tower, 
pursued  him,  by  command  of  the  queen  ; and  a trifling 
skirmish  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Coventry  convinced 
him  that  he  was  no  match  for  the  forces  of  his  adver- 
sary. He  bade  his  followers  reserve  themselves  for 
a more  favourable  opportunity,  and  trusted  himself  to 
the  fidelity  of  a tenant,  of  the  name  of  Underwood,  who 
concealed  him  within  a hollow  tree,  and  then,  through 
the  fear  of  punishment,  or  the  hope  of  reward,  be- 
trayed him  to  his  pursuers.  In  less  than  a fortnight 
from  his  departure,  he  was  an  inmate  of  the  Tower. 
Of  his  brothers,  John  was  already  there,  and  Thomas 
joined  him  soon  afterwards.2 

It  was  in  Kent,  only,  that  the  insurrection  assumed 
a formidable  appearance,  under  the  direction  of  Sir 

1 Noailles  describes  his  brother  as  a partisan  of  the  lady  Elizabeth, 
(iii.  48);  yet  Rosso  (44,  52),  Thuanus  (i.  449),  Stowe  (622),  and 
Heylin  (165 — 263)  assert  that  the  duke  proclaimed  the  lady  Jane 
at  different  places  on  the  road. 

2 Griffet,  xxxii.  Lodge,  i.  187.  Rosso,  46.  Stowe,  618. 
Holins.  1094,  1095. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan  25. 


Feb.  10. 


422 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan.  24. 


Jan.  28. 


Thomas  Wyat.  If  we  may  believe  liis  own  assertion, 
he  ought  not  to  be  charged  with  the  origin  of  the 
conspiracy.  It  was  formed  without  his  knowledge, 
and  was  first  communicated  to  him  by  the  earl  of 
Devon ; but  he  engaged  in  it  with  cheerfulness,  under 
the  persuasion  that  the  marriage  of  the  queen  with 
Philip  would  be  followed  by  the  death  of  the  lady 
Elizabeth,  and  by  the  subversion  of  the  national 
liberties.  By  the  apostasy  of  Courtenay,  he  became 
one  of  the  principals  in  the  insurrection ; and  while 
his  associates,  by  their  presumption  and  weakness, 
proved  themselves  unequal  to  the  attempt,  he  excited 
the  applause  of  his  very  adversaries,  by  the  secrecy 
and  address  with  which  he  organized  the  rising,  and 
by  the  spirit  and  perseverance  with  which  he  con- 
ducted the  enterprise.1  The  moment  he  drew  the 
sword,  fifteen  hundred  armed  men  assembled  around 
him ; while  five  thousand  others  remained  at  their 
homes,  ready,  at  the  first  toll  of  the  alarum-bell,  to 
crowd  to  his  standard.  He  fixed  his  head-quarters  in 
the  old  and  ruinous  castle  of  Bochester ; a squadron 
of  five  sail,  in  the  Thames,  under  his  secret  associate 
Winter,  supplied  him  with  cannon  and  ammunition; 
and  batteries  were  erected  to  command  the  passage  of 
the  bridge,  and  the  opposite  bank  of  the  river.  Yet 
fortune  did  not  appear  to  favour  his  first  attempts. 
Sir  Bobert  Southwell  dispersed  a party  of  insurgents 
under  Knevet ; the  lord  Abergavenny  defeated  a large 
reinforcement  led  by  Isley,  another  of  the  conspira- 
tors ; and  the  citizens  of  Canterbury  rejected  his  en- 
treaties and  derided  his  threats.  It  required  all  his 

1 Howell’s  State  Trials,  i.  863.  Noailles  calls  Wyat,  ung  gen- 
tilhomme  le  plus  vaillant,  et  asseure  de  quoy  j’aye  jamais  ony  parler 
(iii.  59). 


WYAT  DEFEATS  THE  ROYALISTS. 


423 


address  to  keep  his  followers  together.  Though  he  crap. 
boasted  of  the  succours  which  he  daily  expected  from  a.d.  1554 
France,  though  he  circulated  reports  of  successful 
risings  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  many  of  the 
insurgents  began  to  waver ; several  sent  to  the  council 
offers  to  return  to  their  duty,  on  condition  of  pardon ; 
and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  main  force 
under  Wyat  would  have  dissolved  of  itself,  had  it  been 
suffered  to  remain  a few  days  longer  in  a state  of 
inactivity.1 

But  the  duke  of  Norfolk  had  already  marched  from  Jan.  26. 
London,  with  a detachment  of  guards,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Sir  Henry  Jerningham.  He  was  immediately 
followed  by  five  hundred  Londoners,  led  by  Captain 
Bret,  and  was  afterwards  joined  by  the  sheriff  of  Kent 
with  the  bands  of  the  county.  This  force  was  far 
inferior  in  number  to  the  enemy;  and,  what  was  of 
more  disastrous  consequence,  some  of  its  leaders  were 
in  secret  league  with  Wyat.  The  duke,  having  in  vain 
made  an  offer  of  pardon,  ordered  the  bridge  to  be 
forced.  The  troops  were  already  in  motion,  when  Jan.  29. 
Bret,  who  led  the  van,  halted  his  column,  and  raising 
his  sword,  exclaimed,  “ Masters,  we  are  going  to  fight 
“ in  an  unholy  quarrel  against  our  friends  and  country- 
“ men,  who  seek  only  to  preserve  us  from  the  dominion 
“ of  foreigners.  Wherefore  I think  that  no  English 
“ heart  should  oppose  them,  and  am  resolved  for  my 
“ own  part  to  shed  my  blood  in  the  cause  of  this  worthy 
“ captain,  Master  Wyat.”  This  address  was  seconded 
by  Brian  Fitzwilliam  ; shouts  of  “ a Wyat ! a Wyat  1” 
burst  from  the  ranks ; and  the  Londoners,  instead  of 
advancing  against  the  rebels,  faced  about  to  oppose 

1 Noailles,  iii.  46,  47.  Lodge,  i.  187.  Cont.  of  Fabyan,  558. 

Hoiins.  1093,  1095. 


424 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jan.  30. 


Feb.  1. 


the  royalists.1  At  that  moment  Wyat  himself  joined 
them  at  the  head  of  his  cavalry  ; and  the  duke,  witli 
his  principal  officers,  apprehending  a general  defection, 
fled  towards  Gravesend.  Seven  pieces  of  artillery  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  insurgents ; their  ranks  were 
recruited  from  the  deserters  ; and  the  whole  body, 
confident  of  victory,  began  their  march  in  the  direc- 
tion of  London.2 

This  unexpected  result  revealed  to  the  queen  the 
alarming  secret  that  the  conspiracy  had  pushed  its 
branches  into  the  very  heart  of  the  metropolis.  Every 
precaution  was  immediate^  taken  for  the  security  of 
the  court,  the  Tower,  and  the  city ; the  bridges  for 
fifteen  miles  were  broken  down,  and  the  boats  secured 
on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  river ; the  neighbouring 
peers  received  orders  to  raise  their  tenantry,  and 
hasten  to  the  protection  of  the  royal  person ; and 
a reward  of  one  hundred  pounds  per  annum  in  land 
was  offered  for  the  apprehension  of  Wyat.  That 
chieftain,  with  fifteen  thousand  men  under  his  com- 
mand, had  marched  through  Dart  ford  to  Greenwich 
and  Deptford,  when  a message  from  the  council, 
inquiring  into  the  extent  of  his  demands,  betrayed 
their  diffidence,  and  added  to  his  presumption.  In 
the  court  and  the  council-room,  nothing  was  to  be 
heard  but  expressions  of  mistrust  and  apprehension ; 
some  blamed  the  precipitancy  of  Gardiner  in  the 
change  of  religion  ; some  the  interested  policy  of  the 

1 Noailles,  the  day  before  the  event,  informed  his  sovereign  of  the 
intended  desertion  of  the  officers  of  the  Londoners.  De  ceux  la 
mesme,  selon  que  le  bruict  en  court,  les  principaulx  capitaines  des 
gens  de  pied  se  tourneront  vers  icelles,  quand  ce  viendra  au  besoign 
(iii.  47> 

2 Rosso  says  that  the  duke  fell  into  the  hands  of  Wyat,  -who  be- 
haved to  him  with  respect,  and  told  him  that  he  was  at  liberty  to 
return  to  the  queen,  and  inform  her  that  the  rising  was  not  against 
her,  but  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Spaniards  (p.  47). 


THE  QUEEN’S  SPEECH. 


425 


advisers  of  the  Spanish  match;  and  the  imperial 
ambassadors,  with  the  exception  of  Renard,  fearing 
for  their  lives,  escaped  in  a merchant-vessel  lying  in 
the  river.1  The  queen  alone  appeared  firm  and  col- 
lected ; she  betrayed  no  symptom  of  fear,  no  doubt  of 
the  result ; she  ordered  her  ministers  to  provide  the 
means  of  defence,  and  undertook  to  fix,  by  her  con- 
fidence and  address,  the  wavering  loyalty  of  the  Lon- 
doners.2 The  lord  mayor  had  called  an  extraordinary 
meeting  of  the  citizens  ; and,  at  three  in  the  afternoon, 
Mary,  with  the  sceptre  in  her  hand,  and  accompanied 
by  her  ladies  and  officers  of  state,  entered  the  Gruild- 
hall.  She  was  received  with  every  demonstration  of 
respect,  and,  in  a firm  and  dignified  tone,  complained 
of  the  disobedience  and  insolence  of  the  men  of  Kent. 
At  first  the  leaders  had  condemned  her  intended 
marriage  with  the  prince  of  Spain ; now  they  had 
betrayed  their  real  design.  They  demanded  the 
custody  of  her  person,  the  appointment  of  her  council, 
and  the  .command  of  the  Tower.  Their  object  was 
to  obtain  the  exercise  of  the  royal  authority,  and  to 
abolish  the  national  worship.  But  she  was  convinced 
that  her  people  loved  her  too  well  to  surrender  her 
into  the  hands  of  rebels.  “ As  for  this  marriage,”  she 
continued,  “ye  shall  understand  that  I enterprised  not 
“the  doing  thereof,  without  the  advice  of  all  our  privy 
“ council ; nor  am  1,  I assure  ye,  so  bent  to  my  own 
“ will,  or  so  affectionate,  that  for  my  own  pleasure  I 

1 Noailles,  iii.  53.  Griffet,  xxx.  iii. 

2 So  says  Kenard  (ibid.)  and  a writer  inter  Poli  Epis.  Tu,  cseteris 
tam  repentino  tuo  pericuio  perturbatis,  animo  ipsa  minime  fracta  ac 
debilitata  es,  sed  ita  te  gessisti,  &c.  (tom.  v.  App.  382).  Noailles,  on 
the  contrary,  says  : Je  me  deliberay  en  cape  de  veoir  de  quel  visaige 
elle  et  sa  compaignie  y alloient,  que  je  cogneus  estre  aussy  triste  et 
desploree  qu’il  se  peult  penser  (iii.  51). 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D  1554. 


Feb.  2. 


426 


MARY. 


chap,  “would  choose  where  I lust,  or  needs  must  have 

v. 

a.d.  1554.  “ a husband.  I have  hitherto  lived  a maid ; and 
“ doubt  nothing,  but  with  God’s  grace  I am  able  to 
“ live  so  still.  Certainly,  did  I think  that  this  mar- 
“ riage  were  to  the  hurt  of  you  my  subjects,  or  the 
“ impeachment  of  my  royal  estate,  I would  never 
“consent  thereunto.  And,  I promise  you,  on  the 
“ word  of  a queen,  that,  if  it  shall  not  appear  to  the 
“ Lords  and  Commons  in  parliament  to  be  for  the 
“benefit  of  the  whole  realm,  I will  never  marry, 
“ while  I live.  Wherefore,  stand  fast  against  these 
“ rebels,  your  enemies  and  mine  ; fear  them  not,  for  I 
“ assure  ye,  I fear  them  nothing  at  all ; and  I will 
“leave  with  you  my  Lord  Howard  and  my  lord 
“ admiral,  who  will  be  assistant  with  the  mayor  for 
“ your  defence.”  With  these  words  she  departed ; 
the  hall  rang  with  acclamations  ; and  by  the  next 
morning  more  than  twenty  thousand  men  had  enrolled 
their  names  for  the  protection  of  the  city.1 2 
i'eb.  3.  The  next  day  Wyat  entered  Southwark.  But  his 
followers  had  dwindled  to  seven  thousand  men,  and 
were  hourly  diminishing.  No  succours  had  arrived 
from  France ; no  insurrection  had  burst  forth  in  any 
other  county ; and  the  royal  army  was  daily  strength- 
ened by  reinforcements.  The  batteries  erected  on  the 
walls  of  the  Tower  compelled  him  to  leave  South- 
wark f but  he  had  by  this  time  arranged  a plan  with 
some  of  the  reformers  in  the  city  to  surprise  Ludgate 

1 Holins.  1096.  Noailles,  iii.  52,  66.  Foxe,  iii.  25.  She  spoke 
with  so  much  ease,  that  Foxe  adds,  li  she  seemed  to  have  perfectly 
“ conned  it  without  book.” — Ibid. 

2 Here  his  followers  had  pillaged  the  house  of  Gardiner,  and  de- 
stroyed the  books  in  his  library,  “ so  that  a man  might  have  gone  up 
“ to  the  knees  in  the  leaves  of  books,  cut  out  and  thrown  under 
“foot.” — Stowe,  619. 


WYAT  ENTERS  THE  CITY. 


427 


an  hour  before  sunrise ; and  for  that  purpose  directed 
his  march  towards  Kingston.  Thirty  feet  of  the 
wooden  bridge  had  been  destroyed ; but  he  swam,  or 
prevailed  on  two  seamen  to  swim,  across  the  river, 
and,  having  procured  a boat  from  the  opposite  bank, 
laboured  with  a few  associates  at  the  repairs,  while  his 
men  refreshed  themselves  in  the  town.  At  eleven  at 
night  the  insurgents  passed  the  bridge  ; at  Brentford 
they  drove  in  the  advanced  post  of  the  royalists^’  but 
an  hour  was  lost  in  repairing  the  carriage  of  a cannon, 
and,  as  it  became  too  late  for  Wyat  to  keep  his 
appointment  at  Ludgate,  the  chief  of  his  advisers 
abandoned  him  in  despair.  Among  these  were  Poinet, 
the  Protestant  bishop  of  Winchester,  who  now  hast- 
ened to  the  continent ; and  Sir  George  Harper,  who 
rode  to  St.  James’s,  and  announced  the  approach  and 
expectations  of  Wyat.  He  arrived  about  two  hours 
after  midnight.  The  palace  was  instantly  filled 
with  alarm ; the  boldness  of  the  attempt  gave 
birth  to  reports  of  treason  in  the  city  and  the  court ; 
and  the  ministers  on  their  knees,  particularly  the 
chancellor,  conjured  the  queen  to  provide  for  her 
own  safety,  by  retiring  into  the  Tower.  But  Mary 
scorned  the  timidity  of  her  advisers  : from  the  earl  of 
Pembroke  and  Lord  Clinton  she  received  assurances 
that  they  would  do  their  duty ; and  in  return  she 
announced  her  fixed  determination  to  remain  at  her 
post.  In  a council  of  war  it  was  decided  to  place 
a strong  force  at  Ludgate,  to  permit  the  advance  of 
Wyat,  and  then  to  press  on  him  from  every  quarter, 
and  to  enclose  him  like  a wild  beast  in  the  toils.1 

1 Griffet,  xxxv.  Cum  tui  te  hortando  et  obsecrando  urgere  non 
desisterent,  ut  in  arcem  te  reciperes,  ne  turn  quidem  ullius  timoris 
signum  dedisti. — Pol.  Ep.  tom.  v.  App.  332.  “ It  was  more  than 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 
Feb.  6. 


Feb.  7. 


428 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


At  four  in  the  morning  the  drum  heat  to  arms ; and 
in  a few  hours  the  royalists  under  Pembroke  and 
Clinton  amounted  to  ten  thousand  infantry  and  fifteen 
hundred  cavalry.  The  hill  opposite  St.  James’s  was 
occupied  with  a battery  of  cannon  and  a strong 
squadron  of  horse ; lower  down,  and  nearer  to  Charing 
Cross,  were  posted  two  divisions  of  infantry ; and 
several  smaller  parties  were  detached  to  different 
points  in  the  vicinity.  About  nine,  Wyat  reached 
Hyde  Park  Corner.  Many  of  his  followers  who  heard 
of  the  queen’s  proclamation  of  pardon,  had  slunk  away 
in  the  darkness  of  the  night ; the  rest  were  appalled 
at  the  sight  of  the  formidable  array  before  their  eyes. 
But  their  leader  saw  that  to  recede  must  be  his  ruin ; 
he  still  relied  on  the  co-operation  of  the  conspirators 
and  reformers  in  the  city  ; and  after  a short  cannonade, 
seizing  a standard,  rushed  forward  to  charge  the 
cavalry.  They  opened ; allowed  three  or  four  hun- 
dred men  to  pass ; and,  closing,  cut  off  the  commu- 
nication between  them  and  the  main  body.  The 
insurgents,  separated  from  their  leader,  did  not  long 
sustain  the  unequal  contest ; about  one  hundred  were 
killed,  great  numbers  wounded,  and  four  hundred 
made  prisoners.  Wyat  paid  no  attention  to  the  battle 
which  raged  behind  his  back.  Intent  on  his  purpose, 
he  hastened  through  Piccadilly,  insulted  the  gates  of 
the  palace,  and  proceeded  towards  the  city.  No 
molestation  was  offered  by  the  armed  bands  stationed 

“ marvel  to  see  that  clay  the  invincible  heart  and  constancy  of  the 
“ queen.” — Holins.  1098.  Renard  says  that  she  showed,  tel  cueur 
qu’elle  dit  ne  se  vouloir  retirer,  si  le  comte  de  Pembroke  et  Clinton 
vouloient  faire  leur  devoir,  et  incontenent  envoy  a devers  eux,  quila 
suppliarent  ne  bouger. — Renard’s  MISS.  iii.  287.  Rosso  adds  that 
she  had  a guard  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  men,  and  beheld  the  charge 
made  by  Pembroke  at  the  distance  of  musket-shot. — Rosso,  50. 


IS  MADE  PRISONER. 


429  A 


on  each  side  of  the  street.  At  Ludgate  he  knocked, ' 
and  demanded  admittance,  “ for  the  queen  had  granted 
“ all  his  petitions.” — “ Avaunt,  traitor!”  exclaimed 
from  the  gallery  the  lord  William  Howard,  “thou 
“shalt  have  no  entrance  here.”  Disappointed  and 
confounded,  he  retraced  his  steps,  till  he  came  oppo- 
site the  inn  called  the  Bel  Savage.  There  he  halted 
a few  minutes.  To  the  spectators  he  seemed  absorbed 
in  thought ; but  was  quickly  aroused  by  the  shouts  of 
the  combatants,  and  with  forty  companions  continued 
to  fight  his  way  back,  till  he  reached  Temple  Bar. 
He  found  it  occupied  by  a strong  detachment  of 
horse ; whatever  way  he  turned,  fresh  bodies  of 
royalists  poured  upon  him  ; and  Norroy  king-at-arms 
advancing,  exhorted  him  to  spare  the  blood  of  his 
friends,  and  to  yield  himself  a prisoner.  After  a 
moment’s  pause,  he  threw  away  his  sword,  and  sur- 
rendered to  Sir  Maurice  Berkeley,  who  carried  him 
first  to  the  court,  and  thence  to  the  Tower.  There, 
in  the  course  of  a few  hours,  he  was  rejoined  by  the 
chief  of  the  surviving  conspirators.  The  nobility  and 
gentry  crowded  to  St.  James’s  to  offer  their  con- 
gratulations to  the  queen,  who  thanked  them  in  warm 
terms  for  their  loyalty  and  courage.  Two  were  ex- 
cepted, Courtenay  and  the  young  earl  of  Worcester ; 
who,  on  the  first  advance  of  the  enemy,  through 
timidity  or  disaffection,  had  turned  the  heads  of  their 
horses  and  fled,  exclaiming  that  all  was  lost.1 

1 Stowe,  620 — 622.  Strype,  iii.  89.  Noailles,  iii.  59,  64 — 69. 
Courtenay  et  le  compte  d’Orcestre  pour  leur  premiere  guerre  se  re- 
tirarent  arriere  contre  la  cour,  sans  coup  frapper,  et  dirent  que  tout 
etoit  perdu,  que  la  victoire  etoit  aux  enemys,  qu’a  ete  singulierement 
note,  et  confirme  ce  que  l’ambassadeur  de  France  ecrivoit,  que 
l’emprinse  se  faisoit  pour  lui  ....  II  (Courtenay)  montra  ce  qu’il 
avoit  dans  le  cueur,  dont  ladite  dame  est  forte  irritee. — Renard’s 
MSS.  iii.  289. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


430 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Feb.  8. 


At  the  termination  of  the  former  conspiracy,  the 
queen  had  permitted  hut  three  persons  to  be  put  to 
death — an  instance  of  clemency,  considering  all  the 
circumstances,  not  perhaps  to  be  paralleled  in  the 
history  of  those  ages.  But  the  policy  of  her  conduct 
had  been  severely  arraigned  both  by  the  emperor  and 
some  of  her  own  counsellors.  Impunity,  they  argued, 
encourages  the  factious  to  a repetition  of  their  offence ; 
men  ought  to  he  taught  by  the  punishment  of  the 
guilty,  that  if  they  presume  to  brave  the  authority  of 
the  sovereign,  it  must  be  at  the  peril  of  their  lives 
and  fortunes.  Mary  now  began  to  admit  the  truth  of 
these  maxims  ; she  condemned  her  former  lenity  as 
the  cause  of  the  recent  insurrection,1  and  while  her 
mind  was  still  agitated  with  the  remembrance  of  her 
danger,  was  induced  to  sign,  on  the  morrow  of  the 
action  at  Temple  Bar,  a warrant  for  the  execution  of 
“ Guilford  Dudley  and  his  wife,”  at  the  expiration 
of  three  days.  On  the  fatal  morning  the  queen  sent 
them  permission  to  take  a last  farewell  of  each  other ; 
hut  Jane  refused  the  indulgence,  saying,  that  in  a 
few  hours  they  should  meet  in  heaven.  Prom  the 
window  of  her  cell  she  saw  her  husband  led  to  execu- 
tion, and  beheld  his  bleeding  corpse  brought  back  to 
the  chapel.  He  had  been  beheaded  on  Tower  Hill,  in 
sight  of  an  immense  multitude  ; she  on  account  of  her 
royal  descent,  was  spared  the  ignominy  of  a public 
execution.  With  a firm  step  and  cheerful  countenance 
she  mounted  she  scaffold,  which  had  been  erected  on 
the  green  within  the  Tower,  and  acknowledged  in 

1 Ledit  Thomas,  le  second  fils  dudit  due  de  Suffolk,  etant  prison- 
nier,  a ecris  lettre  a ladite  dame  pour  misericorde : mais  elle  est 
determinee  de  passer  ses  affaires  par  la  justice  requise,  puis  qu’ils  ont 
mesuse  et  abuse  de  sa  clemence  et  misericorde,  et  de  incontinent 
ieur  faira  trancher  la  tete. — Ren.  MSS.  289. 


EXECUTION  OF  LADY  JANE  GREY. 


431 


a few  words  to  the  spectators  her  crime  in  having 
consented  to  the  treason  of  Northumberland,  though 
she  was  not  one  of  the  original  conspirators.  “ That 
“ device,”  she  said,  “ was  never  of  my  seeking,  but 
“ by  the  counsel  of  those  who  appeared  to  have  better 
“ understanding  of  such  things  than  I.  As  to  the 
“ procurement  or  desire  of  such  dignity  by  me,  I wash 
“ my  hands  thereof  before  God  and  all  you  Christian 
“ people  this  day.”  Here  she  wrung  her  hands,  then 
having  expressed  her  confidence  of  obtaining  mercy 
through  the  blood  of  Christ,  requested  the  spectators 
to  assist  her  in  that  trial  with  their  prayers,  repeated 
a psalm  with  Feckenham,  formerly  abbot  of  West- 
minster, and  laid  her  head  upon  the  block.  At  one 
stroke  it  was  severed  from  the  body.1  Her  life  had 
before  been  spared  as  a pledge  for  the  loyalty  of  the 
house  of  Suffolk.  That  pledge  was  indeed  forfeited 
by  the  rebellion  of  the  duke,  but  it  would  have  been 
to  the  honour  of  Mary  if  she  had  overlooked  the  pro- 
vocation, and  refused  to  visit  on  the  daughter  the 
guilt  of  the  father.  Her  youth  ought  to  have  pleaded 
most  powerfully  in  her  favour ; and,  if  it  were  feared 
that  she  would  again  be  set  up  by  the  factious  as  a 
competitor  with  her  sovereign,  the  danger  might  cer- 
tainly have  been  removed  by  some  expedient  less  cruel 
than  the  infliction  of  death. 

The  chief  of  the  conspirators  had  been  conveyed  to 
the  Tower,  to  abide  their  trials ; against  the  common 

1 Losely  MSS.  122.  Foxe/  iii.  29.  Holms.  1099.  Noailles, 
iii.  125.  Eoxe  has  published  several  letters  said  to  be  the  production 
of  this  unfortunate  lady.  They  breathe  a contempt  of  death,  sub- 
lime sentiments  of  piety,  and  a profound  hatred  of  the  ancient 
creed,  expressed  in  the  most  bitter  language  against  its  professors. 
It  is,  however,  difficult  to  believe  them  the  unaided  composition  of  a 
young  woman  of  seventeen. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554- 


432 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 
Feb.  14. 

Feb.  15. 

Feb.  20, 


men,  who  had  been  taken  in  the  field,  it  was  deter- 
mined to  proceed  by  martial  law.  About  fifty  of 
those  who  had  deserted  with  Bret  were  hanged  in 
different  parts  of  the  metropolis ; half  a dozen  suf- 
fered in  Kent ; and  the  remainder,  amounting  to  four 
hundred,  were  led  to  the  palace  with  halters  round 
their  necks.  Mary  appeared  at  a balcony,  pronounced 
their  pardon,  and  bade  them  return  in  peace  to  their 
homes.1 

Most  of  the  prisoners  in  the  Tower,  on  the  expres- 
sion of  their  sorrow,  obtained  their  discharge.  Of  six 
who  were  brought  to  the  bar,  Sir  Nicholas  Throck- 
morton alone  pleaded  his  cause  with  success.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  he  was  deeply  engaged  in  the 
conspiracy  ; but  he  claimed  the  benefit  of  the  recent 
statute  abolishing  all  treasons  created  since  the  reign 
of  Edward  III. ; disputed  every  point  with  the  counsel 
and  the  bench,  and  contended  that  no  overt  act  of 
treason  had  been  proved  against  him.  He  was  acquitted 
by  the  jury ; but  the  judges,  on  the  ground  that  the 
verdict  was  contrary  to  law,  remanded  him  to  the 
Tower,  from  which  he  was  not  discharged  till  the 
next  year.  On  the  same  account  the  jurors  were 
called  before  the  Star  Chamber,  where  some  made 
their  submission ; the  others  were  fined  and  impri- 
soned.2 

1 Noailles  and  Renard  represent  the  sufferers  as  more  numerous  ; 
but  our  own  writers,  who  could  not  be  mistaken,  agree  in  the 
number  mentioned  in  the  text. 

2 We  have  an  elaborate  and  copious  report  of  this  remarkable 
trial.  The  author  is  unknown ; but  it  is  an  impeachment  of  his 
credit,  that  he  was  a warm  partisan  of  Throckmorton,  or  of  the 
cause  which  Throckmorton  supported.  This  is  plain  from  his 
anxiety  to  exhibit  the  answers  and  speeches  of  the  prisoner  in  the 
most  favourable  light,  whilst  the  pleadings  of  his  opponents  and  the 
remarks  of  the  judges  are  often  hastily  slurred  over,  or  perhaps 
wilfully  suppressed.  The  punishment  of  the  jury  must  not  be  con- 


EXECUTION  OF  CONSPIRATORS.  433 

Of  the  five  conspirators  who  had  received  judgment, 
Croft  obtained  a pardon.  i.  The  duke  of  Suffolk 
fell  unpitied.  His  ingratitude  to  the  queen,  his  dis- 
regard of  his  daughter’s  safety,  and  his  meanness  in 
seeking  to  purchase  forgiveness  by  the  accusation  of 
others,  had  sharpened  the  public  indignation  against 
him.  2.  Suffolk  was  followed  to  the  scaffold  by 
Wyat,  the  chief  support  of  the  insurrection  ; but  his 
weak  and  wavering  conduct  in  the  Tower  provoked  a 
suspicion  that  he  had  little  claim  to  that  firmness  of 
mind  for  which,  by  his  daring  in  the  field,  he  had 
obtained  credit.  3.  The  next  victim  was  the  lord 
Thomas  Grrey,1  a nobleman  of  venturous  spirit  and 
towering  ambition,  who  by  his  unbounded  influence 
over  his  brother,  the  duke,  was  believed  to  have 
drawn  him  into  this  unfortunate  enterprise.  The  last 
who  suffered  was  William  Thomas,  private  secretary 
to  the  late  king.  Discontent  and  fanaticism  had 
urged  him  to  the  most  daring  attempts ; he  was  con- 
victed of  a design  to  murder  the  queen ; and,  though 
he  stabbed  himself  in  his  prison,  expired  on  the  scaffold. 
These  executions  have  induced  some  writers  to  charge 
Mary  with  unnecessary  cruelty  : perhaps  those  who 
compare  her  with  her  contemporaries  in  similar  cir- 
cumstances will  hesitate  to  subscribe  to  that  opinion. 
If,  on  this  occasion,  sixty  of  the  insurgents  were 
sacrificed  to  her  justice  or  resentment,  we  shall 
find  in  the  history  of  the  next  reign  that,  after  a 

sidered  as  a solitary  instance.  “The  fact  is,”  says  Mr.  Jardine 
(Criminal  Trials,  i.  114),  uthat  the  judges  had  for  centuries  before 
“ exercised  a similar  authority,  though  not  without  some  murmuring 
“ against  it,  and  it  was  not  till  more  than  a century  afterwards  that, 
“in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  (1670),  a solemn  decision  was  pro- 
“ nounced  against  its  legality.” 

1 The  lord  John  was  also  condemned,  but  pardoned  and  discharged 
by  order  of  the  queen. 

VOL.  V.  2 F 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 
Feb.  23. 

April  11. 


April  17. 


May  18. 


434 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1554. 


rebellion  of  a less  formidable  aspect,  some  hundreds 
of  victims  were  required  to  appease  the  offended 
majesty  of  her  sister.1 

That  princess  was  still  at  Ashridge,  where  we  left 
her  a fortnight  ago,  labouring,  or  pretending  to  labour, 
under  some  severe  indisposition.  But  in  that  short 
space  much  had  come  to  light  which  tended  to  impli- 
cate her  in  the  conspiracy  ;2  and  it  was  believed  that 
her  refusal  to  join  the  queen  in  the  capital  proceeded 
more  from  consciousness  of  guilt  than  infirmity  of 
body.  The  council  resolved  to  enforce  submission  ; 
but  Mary  insisted  that,  at  the  same  time,  due  consi- 

1 If  we  look  at  the  conduct  of  government  after  the  rebellions  of 
1715  and  1745,  we  shall  not  find  that  the  praise  of  superior  lenity 
is  due  to  more  modern  times. 

2 When  prisoners,  to  save  their  own  lives,  accuse  others,  their 
depositions  are  not,  separately,  more  worthy  of  credit  than  the  con- 
trary assertions  of  the  accused.  On  both  sides  there  is  the  same 
motive  for  falsehood.  But  in  the  present  case  the  charge  against 
Elizabeth  and  Courtenay  is  confirmed  by  the  despatches  of  Noailles, 
written  in  the  months  of  December  and  January,  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  rebellion.  It  has,  indeed,  been  said  that  Wyat,  at  his 
death,  declared  both  the  prisoners  innocent.  But  a little  reflection 
will  show  that  nothing  can  be  deduced  from  the  words  and  conduct 
of  Wyat.  1.  He  visited  Courtenay,  and  remained  with  him  half  an 
hour  in  his  cell.  If  we  believe  the  sheriffs,  he  asked  Courtenay’s 
pardon  for  having  accused  him : if  we  believe  Lord  Chandois,  who 
was  also  present,  he  exhorted  him  to  confess  his  offence.  It  is  plain 
that,  from  such  contradictory  statements  nothing  certain  can  be 
eliqited.  2.  It  was  rumoured,  that  on  the  scaffold  he  pronounced 
both  the  prisoners  innocent.  This  was  reported  by  Noailles  to  his 
court ; but  two  persons  who  had  propagated  the  same  story  in  the 
city  were  put  in  the  pillory,  for  spreading  false  intelligence. — His 
words  are  said  to  have  been  : “ Where  it  is  noised  abroad  that  I 
“ should  accuse  the  lady  Elizabeth,  and  the  lord  Courtenay,  it  is  not 
“ so,  good  people ; for  I assure  you  neither  they,  nor  any  other  now 
u yonder,  in  hold,  was  privy  of  my  rising  before  I began,  as  I have 
“ declared  no  less  to  the  queen’s  council ; and  that  is  most  true.” 
It  may  certainly  be  true ; for  he  rose  unexpectedly,  six  weeks  before 
the  time  originally  fixed  upon.  But  Dr.  Weston  immediately  said, 
il  Mark  this,  my  masters,  that  that  which  he  hath  shown  to  the 
“ council  of  them  in  writing,  is  true.”  Wyat  made  no  reply.  Was 
not  this  silence  equivalent  to  an  acknowledgment  ? — See  Stowe,  624. 


QUEEN  S CONDUCT  TO  ELIZABETH. 


435 


deration  should  be  paid  to  her  health  and  her  rank. 
A very  kind  invitation  was  written  to  her  by  the 
queen,1  and  a nobleman  in  high  favour  with  the 
princess,  the  lord  William  Howard,  lord  admiral,  was 
commissioned  with  two  colleagues,  Hastings  and  Corn- 
wallis, members  of  the  council,  to  bring  her  to  the 
court.  They  were  instructed  to  take  with  them  two 
of  the  queens  physicians,  to  ascertain  her  ability  to 
travel,  and  also  the  queen’s  litter  for  her  greater  con- 
venience on  the  road.  It  was  with  the  utmost  reluc- 
tance that  Elizabeth  yielded.  The  physicians  assured 
her  that  there  was  no  danger;  the  commissioners  pro- 
posed to  divide  the  road  into  five  short  stages  of  about 
six  miles  each,  by  which  she  might  proceed  from  one 
gentleman’s  house  to  another,  and  perform  the  mighty 
journey  of  thirty  miles  in  the  course  of  six  days.2 
This  arrangement,  however,  did  not  take  place : a 
respite  of  another  week  was  granted ; and  she  at  last 
reached  London  in  great  state,  “ preceded  by  one 
“ hundred  velvet  coats,  and  followed  by  one  hundred 

At  Aldgate  the  litter 
order.  Her  features, 
pale  and  emaciated,  showed  how  severely  she  had 
suffered  from  bodily  disease  or  mental  anxiety.  She 
was  dressed  entirely  in  white,  and  met  with  an  air  of 
haughtiness  and  defiance  the  rude  gaze  of  the  popu- 
lace. On  her  arrival  she  asked  in  vain  for  an  inter- 
view with  the  queen,  and  was  immediately  conducted 
to  apartments  provided  for  her  in  a quarter  of  the 
palace  out  of  which  there  was  no  egress  but  through 

1 Strype,  iii.  130;  reprint  of  1816. 

2 We  owe  the  knowledge  of  these  minute  particulars  to  the  re- 
searches of  Mr.  Tytler  (ii.  420).  They  are  interesting,  because  they 
show  how  little  credit  is  due  to  the  tragic  description  of  the  same 
event  in  Foxe,  792. 


“ more  in  scarlet  and  silver.’1 
was  thrown  open  by  her 


CHAP. 

v. 

A.D.  1554. 


Jap. 26. 


2 F 2 


436 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

7. 

A.D.  1554. 


March  17. 


a passage  occupied  by  the  guard.  Of  her  numerous 
suite  there  remained  to  wait  upon  her  two  of  her 
gentlemen,  six  ladies,  and  two  servants  : the  rest  were 
lodged  in  the  city.1 

It  now  became  a most  perplexing  question,  in  what 
manner  to  proceed  with  respect  to  Elizabeth  and 
Courtenay.  Of  their  participation  in  the  treason  of 
the  insurgents  there  could  hardly  exist  a doubt. 
Additions  were  daily  made  to  the  great  mass  of  evi- 
dence against  them  by  the  disclosures  and  confessions 
of  the  prisoners ; besides  which,  the  council  had  in- 
tercepted three  despatches  of  Noailles,  the  fomenter, 
if  not  the  originator,  of  the  conspiracy,2  and  had 
derived  from  them  detailed  accounts  of  the  plans  and 
resources  of  the  leaders : they  held,  moreover,  two 
notes  from  Wyat  to  the  princess ; one  advising  her  to 
remove  to  Donnington,  and  another  announcing  to 
her  his  triumphant  entry  into  Southwark  : they  were 
also  in  possession  of  a document  of  more  questionable 
authenticity, — a letter  purporting  to  have  been  written 
by  Elizabeth  herself  to  the  king  of  France.  Mary, 
however,  grew  weary  of  being  the  gaoler  of  her  sister. 
She  proposed  to  the  council  that  some  one  of  the 
lords  should  take  charge  of  her  in  a private  house  in 
the  country.  But  no  man  was  willing  to  incur  the 
responsibility ; and  an  order  was  made  for  her  com- 
mittal to  the  Tower.  She  received  the  intelligence 
with  dismay,  and  most  earnestly  solicited  permission 
to  speak  to,  or  if  that  could  not  be,  to  write  to,  the 

1 Noailles,  88,  100.  Renard,  March  22.  Foxe,  792.  Strype, 
iiL  150. 

1 Dated  26th,  28th,  and  30th  of  January.  They  were  written  in 
cipher,  the  key  to  which  Noailles  thought  would  not  be  discovered. 
— Noailles,  p.  91, 133,  134.  He  was,  however,  mistaken. — Renard’s 
MS.  iii.  286. 


ELIZABETH  IN  THE  TOWER. 


437 


queen.  The  last  was  granted ; and  in  the  letter  said 
to  have  been  written  on  that  occasion,  she  maintained 
with  oaths  and  imprecations  that  she  had  never  re- 
ceived any  letter  from  Wyat,  never  written  a single 
line  to  the  French  king,  never  consented  to  any  pro- 
ject that  could  endanger  the  life  or  crown  of  her 
sister.1  It  was  a Saturday,  and  the  barge  was  in 
readiness  to  convey  her  to  the  Tower.  But  she  con- 
tinued writing  till  the  tide  would  no  longer  serve,  and 
by  that  ingenious  artifice  procured  a respite  till  the 
following  Monday.2 

In  the  Tower  Elizabeth  abandoned  herself  to  the 
most  gloomy  anticipations  ; she  was  saved  from  the 
danger  by  the  abilities  and  good  offices  of  one,  whom 
it  has  been  the  fashion  to  describe  as  her  bitterest 
enemy.  For  several  weeks  Renard,  the  imperial  am- 
bassador, laboured  incessantly  to  extort  the  queen’s 
consent,  that  the  princess  should  be  condemned  and 
sent  to  the  scaffold.  She  was  a competitor  for  the 
crown ; she  had  accepted  the  offer  of  the  rebels,  and 
ought  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  her  treason.  To  spare 
her  was  to  prepare  the  way  for  another  insurrection 
in  her  favour ; as  long  as  she  lived,  Mary  could  never 
sit  on  the  throne  in  security  ; nor  could  the  prince  of 
Spain  venture  to  set  his  foot  on  English  ground  with- 
out danger  to  his  person.  If  these  representations, 

1 u To  this  present  hower,”  she  says,  “ I protest  afore  God 
u (who  shal  juge  my  truethe,  whatsoever  malice  shal  devise)  that  I 
“ never  practised,  conciled,  nor  consented  to  any  thinge,  that  might 
il  be  prejudicial  to  your  parson  any  way,  or  dangerous  to  the  state 
“ by  any  mene. — As  for  the  traitor  Wyat,  he  might  paraventur  writ 
“ me  a lettar  : but  on  my  faithe  I never  received  any  from  him  ; and 
“ as  for  the  copie  of  my  lettar  sent  to  the  French  kinge,  I pray  God 
u confound  me  eternally,  if  ever  I sent  him  word,  message,  token,  or 
“ lettar  by  any  menes  ; — and  to  this  my  trueth  I wil  stand  in  to  my 
i(  dethe.” — Neve  on  Philips,  App.  No.  II.  Ellis,  2nd  series,  ii.  259. 

3 Renard,  March  22. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


438 


MARY. 


chap,  made  in  the  name  of  the  emperor,  produced  no  effect, 
a.d.  ’1554.  the  ambassador  was  aware  that  the  failure  arose  from 
the  influence  of  Gardiner  over  the  mind  of  the  queen. 
No  reasoning,  no  remonstrances,  could  divert  the 
English  minister  from  his  purpose.  He  amused  the 
ambassador  with  fair  words,  and  feigned  to  be  of  his 
opinion.1  But  certain  accustomed  forms  must  be 
observed,  and  care  be  taken  that  the  proceedings 
should  be  conducted  according  to  law  and  precedent 
a task  which  he  would  take  upon  himself  without 
delay.  He  began  with  the  charge  against  Courtenay. 
The  preliminary  examinations  were  made,  and  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown  gave  an  opinion  that  the 
April  30.  evidence  against  him  was  sufficient  to  insure  his  con- 
viction of  the  crime  of  high  treason.  But  here  Gar- 
diner unaccountably  paused ; and  Courtenay,  instead 
of  being  brought  to  trial,  was  suffered  to  remain  a 
quiet  prisoner  in  the  Tower.  With  respect  to  the 
princess  Elizabeth,  the  same  answer  was  always  re- 
turned to  the  inquiries  of  Benard,  that  the  queen  had 
not  yet  made  up  her  mind,  but  waited  till  more  deci- 
sive proof  might  be  obtained.  Mary  called  for  the 

1 In  the  beginning  of  April,  during  a conference  between  Renard 
and  Gardiner,  in  the  presence  of  the  queen,  Gardiner  is  stated  by  the 
ambassador  to  have  owned  that  u as  long  as  Elizabeth  was  alive 
“ there  was  no  hope  that  the  kingdom  could  be  tranquil and  to 
have  said  afterwards,  that  ‘cif  everybody  went  as  roundly  to  work  in 
“ providing  the  necessary  remedies  as  he  did,  things  would  go  on 
“ better.” — Tyt.  ii.  365.  It  is  a pity  that  this  interesting  letter  has 
not  been  published,  as  well  as  others  of  much  less  interest.  From 
the  two  short  extracts  copied  above,  it  has  been  inferred  that  Gar- 
diner really  thirsted  for  the  blood  of  Elizabeth.  But  no  such  infer- 
ence can  be  fairly  deduced  from  them  ; nor  does  the  first  of  the  two 
prove  any  thing  more  than  that  the  wily  statesman  was  willing  to 
appear  of  the  same  opinion  with  the  emperor.  Of  his  real  intention 
with  respect  to  the  princess  we  may  judge  from  the  fact  that  he 
continued  after  this  conference  to  shield  her,  as  he  had  done  before, 
from  the  repeated  attempts  of  the  ambassador  to  have  her  brought 
to  trial,  and  put  to  death. 


INTRIGUES  OF  NOAILLES. 


439 


first  of  tlie  intercepted  despatches  of  Noailles,  the 
document  said  to  contain  the  damning  proof  of  her 
connection  with  the  rebels,  but  it  was  not  forthcoming. 
The  chancellor  could  not  deny  that  it  had  originally 
been  in  his  possession ; but  now1,  after  a long  search, 
it  could  nowhere  be  found.1  Was  it  not  that  he  had 
determined  to  suppress  it?  Were  not  the  queen  and 
her  minister  acting  in  concert?  For  otherwise  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  she  could  have  passed  over 
in  silence  a matter  so  likely  to  provoke  suspicion. 
Thus  the  time  passed  on  till  the  dissolution  of  parlia- 
ment. The  Whitsuntide  holidays  followed ; and  the 
queen  repaired  to  her  palace  at  Richmond,  whence 
she  sent  an  order  to  Elizabeth  to  come  from  the 
Tower  by  water,  and  join  the  court.  A few  days  later 
the  princess  was  sent  forward  to  Woodstock,  which 
had  been  selected  for  her  residence,  and  where  she 
remained  till  the  beginning  of  the  next  year,  under 
the  care  and  superintendence  of  Sir  Henry  Beding- 
feld.2  Courtenay  was  also  liberated,  and  conducted 
to  Fotheringay  Castle  by  Sir  Thomas  Tresham. 

Another  subject  of  discussion  was  the  conduct  to 
he  observed  in  relation  to  Noailles,  whose  clandestine 
intrigues  with  the  conspirators  had  been  by  them 
betrayed  to  the  council.  Renard  maintained  to  the 
queen,  that,  by  fomenting  a rebellion  within  the  realm, 
he  had  forfeited  the  privilege  of  an  ambassador ; that 

1 II  a confesse  l’avoir  heu,  et  receu,  mais  il  ne  scavoit  ou  il  l’avoit 
mis. — Renard,  i Mai. 

2 Elizabeth,  after  her  liberation,  familiarly  called  Bedingfeld 
“ her  jailor.”  His  conduct  has  been  vindicated  from  the  slander  of 
Foxe  by  Wharton  (Life  of  Sir  T.  Pope,  75)  and  Miss  Aikin  in  her 
Court  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  It  appears  from  the  family  papers  that 
Bedingfeld  considered  himself  in  favour  with  Elizabeth,  and  fre- 
quently repaired  to  her  court  to  pay  his  respects  to  her  after  she 
became  queen. 


CHAP. 

v. 

A.D.  1554. 


May  1. 


440 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D.  1554. 


March  10. 


he  ought  to  be  sent  out  of  England,  or  put  under 
arrest,  till  the  pleasure  of  his  sovereign  was  known ; 
and  that  the  king  of  France  should  be  informed,  that, 
if  the  culprit  had  been  treated  with  so  much  lenity, 
it  was  not  through  any  doubt  of  his  guilt,  but  through 
respect  for  him,  whose  representative  he  had  been. 
But  to  the  majority  of  the  council  this  measure  ap- 
peared too  bold  and  hazardous.  It  might  lead  to  a 
Avar,  which  it  was  their  object  to  avoid ; and  they 
determined  to  connive  at  his  past,  and  to  watch  his 
subsequent  conduct.  Mary,  however,  who  knew  the 
secret  enmity  of  the  man,  could  ill  disguise  her  feel- 
ings ; and  on  more  than  one  occasion  answered  him 
with  an  asperity  of  language,  of  the  real  cause  of 
which  he  appears  not  to  have  been  aware.1  The 
Venetian  ambassador,  who  had  seconded  the  attempts 
of  Noailles,  was  recalled  by  the  senate. 

The  rebellion  had  suspended,  for  a few  weeks,  the 
proceedings  relative  to  the  queen’s  marriage ; but  in 
the  beginning  of  March  the  count  Egmont  returned 
from  Brussels  with  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  on 
the  part  of  the  emperor.  On  an  appointed  day  the 
lords  of  the  council  accompanied  Mary  to  her  private 
oratory;  and  the  count  was  introduced  by  the  lord 
admiral  and  the  earl  of  Pembroke.  The  queen,  hav- 
ing knelt  before  the  altar,  said,  that  she  took  this 
solemn  occasion  to  express  her  mind  in  their  presence, 
and  to  call  on  God  to  witness  the  truth  of  her  words. 
She  had  not  determined  to  marry  through  dislike  of 
celibacy,  nor  had  she  chosen  the  prince  of  Spain 
through  respect  of  kindred.  In  the  one  and  the  other, 
her  chief  object  had  been  to  promote  the  honour 
of  her  crown,  and  to  secure  the  tranquillity  of  her 

1 GrifFet,  xxxviii. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  PA.RLI AMENT. 


441 


realm.  To  her  people  she  had  pledged  her  faith  on 
the  day  of  her  coronation ; it  was  her  firm  resolve  to 
redeem  that  pledge ; nor  would  she  ever  permit  affec- 
tion for  her  husband  to  seduce  her  from  the  perform- 
ance of  this,  the  first,  the  most  sacred  of  her  duties. 
After  this  address  she  exchanged  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty  with  the  ambassador : he  espoused  her  in 
the  name  of  the  prince  of  Spain ; and  she  put  on  her 
finger  a valuable  ring,  sent  by  the  emperor  as  a pre- 
sent from  his  son.1 

The  parliament  had  been  summoned  to  meet  at 
Oxford,  but  was  transferred  to  Westminster,  appa- 
rently at  the  request  of  the  citizens.2  The  chief  object 
of  the  queen  was  to  silence  the  arguments  of  the 
insurgents  by  the  authority  of  the  legislature,  i . The 
cause  of  the  lady  Jane  had  been  espoused  by  many  of 
the  reformed  preachers.  They  had  then  no  objection 
to  a female  sovereign.  But  the  failure  of  their  hopes 
had  removed  the  veil  from  their  eyes ; and  the  more 
violent  had  now  discovered  that  the  government  of  a 
woman  was  prohibited  by  the  word  of  God.  In  the 
Old  Testament  it  had  been  ordered  to  take  the  king 
from  the  midst  of  the  “ brethren,”  an  expression  which, 
they  contended,  must  exclude  all  females ; and  in  the 
New  we  are  taught  that  the  man  is  the  head  of  the 
woman ; whence  they  inferred,  that  no  woman  ought 
to  possess  the  supreme  authority  over  men.3 * * * *  In  con- 
firmation of  their  doctrine  they  appealed  to  the 


1 Griffet,  xxxix. 

2 It  has  been  said,  but  groundlessly,  that  the  queen  had  dissolved 

the  last  parliament  on  account  of  the  refractory  spirit  of  the  Com- 

mons. Mary,  in  her  letter  to  Pole,  of  Nov.  15,  1553,  informs  him 

of  her  intention  to  dissolve  it,  because  the  session  could  not  be  pro- 

longed at  that  time,  and  to  call  another  in  the  course  of  three 

months. — Ep.  Poli.  iv.  119.  8 Strype?  iii.  11. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


April  2. 


442 


MARY. 


chap,  statutes  of  the  realm.  What  authority  did  they  give 
a.d.  1554.  to  queens  ? It  was  to  kings,  and  to  kings  alone,  that 
they  assigned  the  royal  prerogatives,  and  the  punish- 
ment of  offences  against  the  crown.  In  opposition  to 
this  dangerous  notion,  it  was  now  declared,  without  a 
dissentient  voice  in  either  house,  that  by  the  ancient 
law  of  the  land,  whatever  person,  male  or  female,  is 
invested  with  the  kingly  office,  he  or  she  ought  to 
possess  and  exercise,  in  their  full  extent,  all  the  pre- 
eminence, jurisdiction,  and  powers,  belonging  to  the 
crown.1  2.  To  prove  the  policy  of  the  intended  mar- 
riage with  Philip  against  the  reasoning  of  its  adver- 
saries, the  members  were  requested  to  cast  their  eyes 
on  the  situation  of  the  neighbouring  nations.  France 
and  Scotland  were  the  natural  enemies  of  England. 
Hitherto  they  had  been  connected  only  by  treaties ; 
but  now  the  young  queen  of  Scotland  was  contracted 
to  the  dauphin  of  France.  Where  was  England  to 
find  a counterpoise  but  in  the  marriage  of  the  queen 
to  Philip  of  Spain  P Let  the  issue  of  Mary  Stuart 
inherit  the  two  crowns  of  France  and  Scotland.  By 
this  marriage,  the  issue  of  the  English  queen  would 
inherit  England  with  the  Netherlands;  and  that 
country,  in  the  estimation  of  every  reasonable  man, 
would  prove  a more  valuable  acquisition  to  the  Eng- 
lish crown,  than  Scotland  could  ever  prove  to  that  of 
France.2  But,  it  was  objected,  would  not  this  mar- 
riage place  the  liberties  of  the  nation  at  the  mercy  of 
a foreign  despot  ? Undoubtedly  not.  Let  them  exa- 
mine the  articles  of  the  treaty.  They  had  been  drawn 
after  long  and  mature  deliberation ; they  contained 


1 Stat.  iv.  222. 

3 See  a state  paper  in  Noailles,  iii.  109,  118.  Also  his  account 
of  Gardiner’s  speech,  iii.  152. 


MARRIAGE  ACT  PASSED. 


443 


every  security  which  the  most  ingenious  could  devise,  chap. 
or  the  most  timorous  could  desire ; they  excluded  all  a.d.  '1554. 
foreigners  from  office ; they  placed  the  honour,  the 
franchises,  and  the  rights  of  the  natives  beyond  danger 
or  controversy.  Satisfied  by  this  reasoning,  both 
houses  unanimously  concurred  in  an  act,  confirming 
the  treaty  of  marriage,  and  declaring  that  the  queen, 
after  its  solemnization,  should  continue  to  enjoy  and 
exercise  the  sovereignty  as  sole  queen,  without  any 
right  or  claim  to  be  given  unto  Philip  as  tenant  by 
courtesy,  or  by  any  other  manner.1  Mary,  having 
thus  obtained  her  chief  object,  dissolved  the  parlia-  May  5. 
ment  in  person,  with  an  address,  which  was  repeatedly 
interrupted  by  the  acclamations  of  the  audience. 

Both  Lords  and  Commons  assured  her  that  the  prince 
of  Spain,  on  his  arrival,  would  receive  a most  hearty 
welcome  from  a dutiful  and  affectionate  people.2 

Still  the  king  of  France  indulged  a hope  that  some 
favourable  incident  might  occur  to  interrupt  the  mar- 
riage. He  not  only  opened  an  asylum  for  the  En- 
glish rebels,  who  had  fled  from  justice,  but  encouraged 
them  to  fit  out  vessels  for  the  purpose  of  cruising 
against  the  subjects  of  Charles ; and  he  ordered  his 
ambassador  in  England  to  persist  in  his  intrigues,  and 
to  keep  alive,  by  his  promises,  the  hopes  of  the 
factious.3  That  minister  had  several  warm  alterca- 

1 Stat.  iv.  222 — 226.  According  to  Noailles,  Gardiner,  in  his 
speech,  had  suggested  that,  as  the  queen  and  her  sister  Elizabeth  only 
remained  of  the  descendants  of  Henry  VIII.,  Mary,  like  her  father, 
ought  to  have  the  power  of  regulating  the  succession  after  her  death. 

— Noailles,  iii.  153.  If  it  was  so,  the  subject  was  not  followed  up. 

There  is  no  mention  of  any  such  motion  in  the  journals. 

2 Griffet,  xlvii.  Que  me  met  en  entiere  confidence  que  votre 
venue  par  deca  sera  seure  et  aygreable. — Mary  to  Philip,  Apr.  24th, 
apud  Hearne,  sylloge,  ep.  156. 

8 One  of  their  contrivances  deserves  to  be  mentioned.  The  most 
extraordinary  sounds  were  heard  to  issue  from  a wall  in  Aldersgate 


444 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 


A.D.  1554. 


tions  with  Mary.  He  complained,  in  a haughty  tone, 
that  his  despatches  had  been  intercepted ; she,  that 
her  rebellious  subjects  were  countenanced  and  pro- 
tected by  his  master.  He,  to  intimidate,  hinted  that 
at  the  death  of  Edward  all  the  treaties  between  the 
two  crowns  had  expired ; she,  for  the  same  purpose, 
required  an  explanation  of  his  meaning,  that  she 
might  take  measures  for  her  own  security.  In  the 
mean  time  he  saw  the  preparations  for  the  marriage 
proceeding  with  activity ; and  to  console  his  chagrin, 
employed  his  time  in  collecting  unfounded  tales  for 
the  information  of  his  sovereign,  exaggerating  the  dis- 
content of  the  nation,  and  describing  with  a sarcastic 
levity,  the  impatience  of  the  old  woman  longing  for 
the  presence  of  her  young  husband.1  To  his  sorrow. 


Street,  intermixed  with  words  of  obscure  meaning,  which  were  im- 
mediately interpreted  to  the  crowd  by  persons  in  the  secret.  The 
voice  was  believed  to  be  superhuman,  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
warning  a wicked  and  incredulous  generation.  The  imposture  was 
carried  on  in  the  following  manner.  A man  in  the  crowd  called  out, 
“ God  save  the  queen  the  voice  was  silent.  Then  another  would 
exclaim,  “ God  save  the  princess.”  Amen , in  a loud  shrill  voice 
would  appear  to  issue  from  the  wall.  Others  followed,  propounding 
questions  respecting  the  prince  of  Spain,  the  Spanish  match,  the 
mass,  and  the  several  practices  in  the  Catholic  worship ; to  all  which, 
answers  were  returned  from  the  wall  in  abusive  and  seditious  lan- 
guage. On  the  second  or  third  day,  the  crowd  attracted  by  this 
wonder  wTas  calculated  at  between  fifteen  and  twenty  thousand 
persons  (Mar.  14),  but  the  lord  admiral,  at  the  head  of  the  guards, 
cleared  the  street,  and  the  lord  mayor  followed,  accompanied  by  two 
hundred  workmen,  who  immediately  began  to  demolish  the  wall. 
They  had  not  proceeded  far,  when  the  spirit,  assuming  a bodily  form, 
crept  out  of  a secret  recess ; and  was  found  to  be  a young  woman  of 
eighteen,  by  name  Elizabeth  Crofts.  She  was  made  to  confess  the 
imposture  publicly  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross,  and  to  name  her  accomplices. 
— Renard,  Mar.  14.  Strype,  iii.  99,  136.  Stowe,  624.  Holings. 
1 1 17. 

1 Noailles,  iii.  195,  21 1,  240,  251.  The  geographical  blunders  of 
this  minister  are  often  amusing.  On  two  occasions  he  informs  his 
court  that  the  queen  is  going  to  reside  at  York,  because  York  is 
situated  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bristol,  where  the  prince  of  Spain 
intends  to  land. — iii.  96. 


LANDING  OF  PHILIP. 


445 


that  husband  in  a short  time  arrived.  He  had  sailed 
from  Corunna,  and  in  seven  days  came  within  sight 
of  Southampton,  escorted  by  the  combined  fleets  of 
England,  the  Netherlands,  and  Spain.  The  morning 
after  his  arrival,  the  lords  of  the  council,  with  a nu- 
merous retinue,  proceeded  to  the  fleet,  and  Philip, 
accompanied  by  the  dukes  of  Alva  and  Medina  Celi, 
the  admiral  of  Castile,  and  Don  Buy  Gomez,  his  go- 
vernor, entered  the  royal  yacht,  where  he  was  received 
by  the  duke  of  Norfolk  and  the  earls  of  Arundel, 
Shrewsbury,  and  Derby.  He  had  already  sworn  to 
the  articles  of  the  treaty,  in  presence  of  the  lords 
Bedford  and  Fitzwalter,  the  English  ambassadors  : 
he  now  took  an  oath  before  the  council,  to  observe 
the  laws,  customs,  and  liberties  of  the  realm.  The 
moment  he  set  his  foot  on  the  beach,  he  was  invested 
with  the  insignia  of  the  order  of  the  Garter ; and 
instantly  a royal  salute  was  fired  by  the  batteries  and 
the  ships  in  the  harbour.  The  queen  had  sent  him  a 
Spanish  genet,  richly  caparisoned;  and,  as  he  rode 
first  to  the  church,  and  thence  to  his  lodging,  the 
people  crowded  around  him  to  see  the  husband  of 
their  sovereign.  His  youth,  the  grace  of  his  person,1 
the  pleasure  displayed  in  his  countenance,  charmed 
the  spectators  : they  saluted  him  with  cries  of  “ God 
“ save  your  grace and  he,  turning  on  either  side, 
expressed  his  thankfulness  for  their  congratulations. 
Before  he  dismissed  the  English  lords,  he  addressed 
them  in  a Latin  speech.  It  was  not,  he  said,  want 
of  men  or  of  money,  that  had  drawn  him  from  his 
own  country.  But  God  had  called  him  to  marry 

1 “ He  is  so  well  proportioned  of  bodi,  arme,  legge,  and  every 
u othere  limme  to  the  same,  as  nature  cannot  worke  a more  parfect 
u paterae.” — Elder  apud  Andrews,  i.  20. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 

July  13. 
July  19. 
July  20. 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


July  25. 


'I? 

446 

their  virtuous  sovereign,  and  he  was  come  to  live 
among  them,  not  as  a foreigner,  but  as  a native  Eng- 
lishman. He  received  with  pleasure  their  assurances 
of  faith  and  loyalty ; and  promised,  in  return,  that 
they  should  always  find  him  a grateful,  affable,  and 
affectionate  prince.  Then  turning  to  the  Spanish 
lords,  he  expressed  a wish  that,  while  they  remained 
in  England,  they  would  conform  to  the  customs  of 
England ; and  to  give  the  example,  drank  farewell  to 
the  company  in  a tankard  of  ale,  a beverage  which 
he  then  tasted  for  the  first  time.1 

Philip  before  he  left  Southampton,  ordered  his  fleet 
to  sail  to  Flanders,  and  sent  to.  the  queen  a present 
of  jewels,  valued  at  one  hundred'  thousand  crowns. 
On  the  festival  of  St.  James,  the  patron  saint  of 
Spain,  the  marriage  was  celebrated  in  the  cathedral 
church  at  Winchester,  before  crowds  of  noblemen 
collected  from  every  part  of  Christendom,  and  with  a 
magnificence  which  has  seldom  been  surpassed.2 3  Im- 
mediately before  the  ceremony,  Figueroa,  an  imperial 
counsellor,  presented  to  Gardiner,  the  officiating  pre- 
late, two  instruments,  from  which  he  said  it  would 
appear  that  his  sovereign,  thinking  it  beneath  the 
dignity  of  so  great  a queen  to  marry  one  who  was 
not  a king,  had  resigned  to  his  son  the  crown  of 
Naples  with  the  duchy  of  Milan.  The  bishop  before 
he  proceeded  to  the  marriage  ceremony,  read  aloud 
these  cessions  and  the  articles  of  the  treaty.  After 
the  mass,  the  king  and  queen  left  the  church,  under 
a canopy,  walking  hand  in  hand,  Mary  on  the  right 
and  Philip  on  the  left,  with  two  naked  swords  borne 

1 Noailles,  iii.  284.  Contin.  of  Fabyan,  561.  Pollini,  362. 

Rosso,  59. 

3 See  a description  of  the  whole  ceremony  in  Rosso,  p.  61. 


MARRIAGE  OF  PHILIP  AND  MARY.  447 

before  them.  They  dined  in  public,  in  the  episcopal 
palace ; and  several  days  were  devoted  to  feasting 
and  rejoicings.1  From  Winchester  the  royal  pair  pro- 
ceeded, by  slow  journeys,  to  Windsor  and  the  metro- 
polis. The  city  had  been  beautified  at  considerable 
expense,  and  the  most  splendid  pageants  had  been 
devised  to  welcome  their  arrival.  If  external  appear- 
ances could  be  taken  for  proofs  of  internal  feeling, 
the  kiug  and  queen  might  justly  flatter  themselves 
that  they  reigned  in  the  hearts  and  affections  of  their 
subjects. 

The  facility  with  which  Mary  had  effected  her 
marriage  showed  how  much  the  failure  of  the  insur- 
rection had  added  to  the  power  of  her  government ; 
and  she  immediately  resolved  to  attempt  that  which 
she  had  long  considered  an  indispensable  duty,  the 
restoration  of  the  religious  polity  of  the  kingdom  to 
that  state  in  which  it  existed  at  the  time  Qf  her  birth. 
The  reader  will  recollect  that  in  her  first  parliament 
she  had  prudently  confined  her  efforts  to  the  public 
re-establishment  of  the  ancient  form  of  worship.  The 
statute  was  carried  into  execution  on  the  appointed 
day,  almost  without  opposition ; the  married  clergy, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  the  canon  law,  were 
removed  from  their  benefices  f and  Grardiner,  with 
the  secret  approbation  of  the  pontiff!,  had  consecrated 

1 No  one  but  the  bishop  dined  at  the  same  table  with  the  king  and 
queen.  On  one  side  was  placed  a cupboard,  containing,  for  show 
ninety-six  large  vases  of  gold  and  silver.  As  soon  as  dinner  was 
over,  the  tables  were  removed;  and  the  rest  of  the  day  was  spent  in 
dancing. — Pollini,  373.  Cabrera,  20.  Rosso,  70. 

2 The  canon  law  had  been  restored  to  its  former  authority  by  the 
repeal  of  the  nine  statutes  in  the  last  parliament.  The  clergymen 
who  were  removed  might,  by  conforming,  recover  their  benefices. — 
If  we  may  judge  of  other  dioceses  from  that  of  Canterbury,  the 
number  of  married  was  to  that  of  unmarried  clergymen  as  one  to 
five. — Harmer,  138. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


448 


MAEY. 


chap.  Catholic  prelates  to  supersede  the  few  Protestant 
a.d.  1554.  bishops  who  remained  in  possession  of  their  sees.1 
Thus  one-half  of  the  measure  had  been  already  ac- 
complished ; the  other,  the  recognition  of  the  papal 
supremacy,  a more  hazardous  task,  was  intrusted  to 
the  care  and  dexterity  of  the  chancellor.  There  were 
two  classes  of  men  from  whom  he  had  to  fear  opposi- 
tion ; those  who  felt  conscientious  objections  to  the 
authority  of  the  pontiff,  and  those  who  were  hostile 
to  it  from  motives  of  interest.  The  former  were  not 
formidable  either  by  their  number  or  their  influence ; 
for  the  frequent  changes  of  religious  belief  had  gene- 
rated in  the  higher  classes  an  indifference  to  religious 
truth.  Their  former  notions  had  been  unsettled  ; and 
no  others  had  been  firmly  planted  in  their  place. 
Unable  or  unwilling  to  compare  the  conflicting  argu- 
ments of  polemics,  they  floated  on  a sea  of  uncertainty, 
ready  at  all  times  to  attach  themselves  to  any  form  ot 
religion  which  suited  their  convenience  or  interest.2 
But  the  second  class  comprised  almost  every  opulent 
family  in  the  kingdom.  They  had  all  shared  the 
plunder,  of  the  church  : they  would  never  consent  to 

1 They  were  seven;  Holgate  of  York,  Taylor  of  Lincoln,  Hooper 
of  Worcester,  Harley  of  Hereford,  Ferrar  of  St.  David’s,  Bush  of 
Bristol,  and  Bird  of  Chester.  Some  of  them  had  married ; some  had 
been  consecrated  according  to  the  new  ordinal,  which  was  held  to  be 
insufficient ; and  all  had  accepted  their  bishoprics  to  hold  them  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  crown,  with  the  clause,  quam  diu  bene  se  gesse- 
rint.  On  one,  or  other,  or  all  of  these  grounds,  they  were  deprived. 
— Eym.  xv.  370,  371. 

2 This  is  the  character  of  the  English  gentry  and  nobility  at  this 
period,  as  it  is  drawn  by  Eenard,  Noailles,  and  the  Venetian  ambas- 
sador, in  their  despatches.  The  latter  represents  them  as  without 
any  other  religion  than  interest,  and  ready  at  the  call  of  the  sovereign 
to  embrace  Judaism  or  Mohammedanism.  II  medesimo  fariana 
della  Macometana,  ove  della  Judaea,  purche  il  re  mostrassi  di  credere 
e volere  cosi,  e accommodariansi  a tutte,  ma  a quella  piu  facilmente 
della  quale  ne  sperassero  over  maggior  licentia  e liberta  di  vivere  o 
vero  qualche  utilta. — MSS.  Barber.  1208. 


PROJECT  OF  REUNION  WITH  ROME. 


449 


the  restoration  of  that  jurisdiction  which  might  call 
in  question  their  right  to  their  present  possessions. 
Hence  Gardiner  saw  that  it  was  necessary,  in  the  first 
place,  to  free  them  from  apprehension,  and,  for  that 
purpose,  to  procure  from  the  pontiff  a bull  confirming 
all  past  alienation  of  the  property  of  the  church. 

This  subject  had  from  the  commencement  been 
urged  on  the  consideration  of  the  court  of  Borne. 
At  first  Pole,  the  legate,  had  been  authorized  “ to 
“ treat,  compound,  and  dispense,”  with  the  holders  of 
ecclesiastical  property,  as  to  the  rents  and  profits 
which  they  had  hitherto  received ; afterwards,  this 
power  was  extended  from  rents  and  profits,  to  lands, 
tenements,  and  tithes.  But  Gardiner  was  not  satis- 
fied.1 He  knew  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  Pole  that  all 
the  property  belonging  to  the  parochial  livings  ought 
to  be  restored ; and  he  feared  that  the  words  “ to 
“ treat,  compound,  and  dispense,”  might  furnish  the 
cardinal  with  a pretext  to  call  individuals  before  his 
tribunal.  The  imperial  court  entered  into  the  views 
of  the  English  minister ; and  it  was  determined  to 
detain  the  cardinal  in  Elanders,2  while  Manriquez 
explained  the  difficulty  to  the  pontiff,  in  the  name 
of  Philip  and  Mary.  Julius,  having  consulted  his 
canonists  and  divines,  assured  the  envoy  that  the 
wishes  of  the  king  and  queen  should  be  gratified,  and 
shortly  afterwards  signed  a bull,  empowering  the 
legate  to  give,  alienate,  and  transfer  to  the  present 

1 Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  222. 

2 The  cardinal  had  been  allowed  to  go  to  Brussels,  and  thence  to 
Paris,  to  offer  the  papal  mediation  in  the  war  between  the  emperor 
and  the  king  of  France.  While  he  was  there,  a letter  was  written 
to  Mary  by  some  one  in  his  suite,  dissuading  her  from  the  marriage 
with  Philip.  Charles  attributed  it  to  the  cardinal,  and  from  that 
moment  treated  him  with  neglect. 

VOL.  y.  2 G 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


June  29. 


Oct.  5. 


450 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


Nov.  1. 


possessors  all  property,  moveable  or  immoveable,  which 
had  been  torn  from  the  church  during  the  reigns  of 
Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.1 

The  parliament  had  been  convoked  for  the  middle 
of  November.  Mar}-  no  longer  regarded  the  murmurs 
of  the  discontented  ; she  was  assured  of  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Peers ; and,  to  lessen  the  chance  of  op- 
position in  the  Commons,  had  ordered  the  sheriffs  to 
recommend  to  the  electors  those  candidates  who  were 
distinguished  by  their  attachment  to  the  ancient  faith.2 
The  procession  was  opened  by  the  commoners ; the 
peers  and  prelates  followed;  and  next  came  Philip 
and  Mary,  in  robes  of  purple,  the  king  on  horseback, 
attended  by  the  lords  of  his  household,  the  queen  in  a 
litter,  followed  by  the  ladies  of  her  establishment. 
The  chancellor,  having  taken  his  place  in  front  of  the 
throne,  addressed  the  two  houses.  The  queen’s  first 
parliament,  he  said,  had  re-established  the  ancient 
worship,  her  second  had  confirmed  the  articles  of  her 
marriage ; and  their  majesties  expected  that  the  third, 
in  preference  to  every  other  object,  would  accomplish 
the  reunion  of  the  realm  with  the  universal  church. 
As  a preliminary  step,  a bill  was  introduced  to  repeal 
the  attainder  of  Cardinal  Pole.  It  was  passed  with 
the  greatest  expedition,  and  the  next  day  the  king 


1 There  is  a letter  from  Cardinal  Morone  to  Pole,  informing  him 
that  all  who  had  been  consulted  were  of  opinion  that  in  this  particular 
case  the  alienation  was  lawful,  and  hoping  thatthere  would  now  be  an 
end  of  his  scruples ; in  lei  sara  cessato  tutto  lo  scrupulo  che  aveva. — 
Quirini,  iv.  170.  The  clause  “to  give,  aliene,  and  transfer,” had 
been  devised  by  Gardiner,  as  the  most  likely  to  tranquillize  the 
present  possessors,  and  to  secure  them  against  subsequent  claims. — 
Pallavicino,  ii.  41 1. 

2 It  was  customary  for  the  ministers  to  send  such  instructions. 
It  Avas  done  in  Edward’s  reign  (Lansdowne  MSS.  iii.  19)  ; and  also 
in  Elizabeth’s  (Strvpe,  i.  32.  Clarendon  Papers,  92). 


ARRIVAL  OF  CARDINAL  POLE. 


451 


and  queen  attended  in  person  to  give  to  it  the  royal 
assent.1 

The  lord  Paget,  and  Sir  Edward  Hastings,  with  Sir 
William  Cecil,  and  a numerous  train  of  gentlemen, 
had  already  reached  Brussels  to  conduct  the  legate  to 
England.2  At  Dover  he  was  received  by  the  lord 
Montague  and  the  bishop  of  Ely ; and,  as  he  advanced, 
his  retinue  was  swelled  by  the  accession  of  the  country 
gentlemen,  till  it  amounted  to  eighteen  hundred  horse. 
He  entered  his  barge  at  Gravesend,  where  he  was 
presented,  by  the  earl  of  Shrewsbury  and  the  bishop 
of  Durham,  with  a copy  of  the  act  repealing  his 
attainder;  and  fixing  his  cross,  the  emblem  of  his 
dignity,  in  the  prow,  he  proceeded  by  water  to  West- 
minster. The  chancellor  received  him  on  his  landing, 
the  king  at  the  gate  of  the  palace,  and  the  queen  at 
the  head  of  the  staircase.  After  a short  conversation, 
he  retired  to  the  archiepiscopal  palace  at  Lambeth, 
which  had  been  prepared  for  his  residence.3 

In  consequence  of  a royal  message,  the  lords  and 
Commons  repaired  to  the  court ; and,  after  a few 
words  from  the  chancellor,  Pole,  in  a long  harangue, 
returned  them  thanks  for  the  act  which  they  had 
passed  in  his  favour,  exhorted  them  to  repeal,  in  like 

1 Journals  of  Lords,  476  ; Commons,  37,  38.  Ep.  Poli.  iv.  App. 
289.  Strype,  iii.  155. 

2 Pole,  ignorant  of  the  proceedings  at  Rome,  had  written  a most 
urgent  letter  to  Philip,  who  sent  Renard  to  explain  the  objections 
to  his  admission  as  legate  without  sufficient  powers.  Pole  replied, 
that  in  addition  to  his  former  powers,  he  had  another  bull  from  the 

^ pope,  promising,  in  verbo  pontificis,  to  ratify  whatever  concessions 
he  might  think  proper  to  make.  Renard  lamented  that  this  was  not 
previously  known.  Immediately  on  the  return  of  Renard,  Pole  was 
desired  to  prepare  for  his  journey. — Pallavicino,  ii.  4ii,ex  registro 
Poli. 

3 Strype,  iii.  157.  Ep.  Poli,  v.  App.  291,  307,  310.  A writ 
authorizing  him  to  exercise  his  powers  had  been  signed  on  the  10th 
of  November. — Strype,  ibid. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 
Nov.  22. 


Nov.  24. 


Nov.  23. 


2 G 2 


452 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D.  1554. 


Nov.  30. 


manner,  all  the  statutes  enacted  in  derogation  of  the 
papal  authority,  and  assured  them  of  every  facility 
on  his  part  to  effect  the  reunion  of  the  church  of 
England  with  that  of  Kome.1  The  chancellor,  having 
first  taken  the  orders  of  the  king  and  queen,  replied, 
that  the  two  houses  would  deliberate  apart,  and  signify 
their  determination  on  the  following  morning. 

The  motion  for  the  reunion  was  carried  almost  by 
acclamation.  In  the  Lords  every  voice  was  raised  in 
its  favour;  in  the  Commons,  out  of  three  hundred 
members,  two  only  demurred,  and  these  desisted  from 
their  opposition  the  next  day.2  It  was  determined  to 
present  a petition  in  the  name  of  both  houses  to  the 
king  and  queen,  stating,  that  they  look  back  with 
sorrow  and  regret  on  the  defection  of  the  realm  from 
the  communion  of  the  Apostolic  See ; that  they  were 
ready  to  repeal,  as  far  as  in  them  lay,  every  statute 
which  had  either  caused  or  supported  that  defection  ; 
and  that  they  hoped,  through  the  mediation  of  their 
majesties,  to  be  absolved  from  all  ecclesiastical 
censures,  and  to  be  received  into  the  bosom  of  the 
universal  church. 

On  the  following  day,  the  feast  of  St.  Andrew,  the 
queen  took  her  seat  on  the  throne.  The  king  was 
placed  on  her  left  hand,  the  legate,  but  at  greater 
distance,  on  her  right.  The  chancellor  read  the 

1 Burnet  tells  us,  that  the  queen  was  so  much  affected,  that  she 
mistook  her  emotion  for  the  “ quickening  of  a child  in  her  belly” 
(ii.  292).  The  fact  took  place  four  days  before.  She  sent  Lord 
Montague  to  inform  the  legate,  che  infino  allora  ella  non  havea 
voluta  confessare  apertamente  d’  esser  gravida ; ma  que  nella  giunta 
de  sua  S.R.  s’  havea  sentito  muover  la  creatura  nel  ventre,  e pero 
non  lo  poteva  piu  negare.  On  the  27th,  it  was  publicly  announced 
by  a circular  from  the  council. — Foxe,  iii.  88.  Noailles,  iv.  23. 

2 Sir  Ralph  Bagnal  (Strype,  iii.  204)  had  refused  to  vote  ; the 
other  grounded  his  objection  on  the  oath  of  supremacy  which  he  had 
taken. — Ep.  Poli,  v.  App.  314. 


DECREE  OF  THE  LEGATE. 


453 


petition  to  their  majesties ; they  spoke  to  the  cardinal ; 
and  he,  after  a speech  of  some  duration,  absolved  “ all 
“ those  present,  and  the  whole  nation,  and  the  domi- 
“ nions  thereof,  from  all  heresy  and  schism,  and  all 
“judgments,  censures,  and  penalties  for  that  cause 
“ incurred ; and  restored  them  to  the  communion  of 
“ holy  church  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
“ Holy  Ghost.”  “ Amen,”  resounded  from  every  part 
of  the  hall ; and  the  members,  rising  from  their  knees, 
followed  the  king  and  queen  into  the  chapel,  where 
Te  Heum  was  chanted  in  thanksgiving  for  the  event.1 
The  next  Sunday  the  legate,  at  the  invitation  of  the 
citizens,  made  his  public  entry  into  the  metropolis ; 
and  Gardiner  preached  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross  the  cele- 
brated sermon,  in  which  he  lamented  in  bitter  terms 
his  conduct  under  Henry  VIII.,  and  exhorted  all,  who 
had  fallen  through  his  means,  or  in  his  company,  to 
rise  with  him,  and  seek  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
church.2 

To  proceed  with  this  great  work,  the  two  houses 
and  the  convocation  simultaneously  presented  separate 
petitions  to  the  throne.  That  from  the  Lords  and 
Commons  requested  their  majesties  to  obtain  from  the 
legate  all  those  dispensations  and  indulgences  which 
the  innovations  made  during  the  schism  had  rendered 


1 Poli  Ep.  y.  App.  315 — 318.  Foxe,  91.  Journal  of  Com- 
mons, 38. 

2 This  sermon  is  noticed  by  Foxe,  iii.  92.  A Latin  translation  of 
it  may  be  seen  inter  Ep.  Poli.  v.  293,  300.  Gardiner  asserts,  that 
Henry  VIII.,  during  the  rebellion  in  1536,  entertained  serious 
thoughts  of  seeking  a reconciliation  with  the  pontiff ; and  that  in 
1541,  he  employed  him  and  Knyvett,  during  the  diet  at  Ratisbon,  to 
solicit  secretly  the  mediation  of  the  emperor  for  that  purpose.  They 
were,  however,  discovered,  and  Gardiner  was  accused  of  holding 
communication  with  Contarini,  the  papal  legate.  Henry  was  care- 
ful to  hush  up  the  matter.  See  some  account  of  it  in  Foxe,  who 
knew$iot  of  Gardiner's  commission,  Foxe,  iii.  448,  449. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1554. 


454 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

y. 

A.D.  1554. 


Dec.  24. 


necessary,  and  particularly  such  as  might  secure  the 
property  of  the  church  to  the  present  possessors  with- 
out scruple  of  conscience,  or  impeachment  from  the 
ecclesiastical  courts.  The  other,  from  the  clergy, 
stated  their  resignation  of  all  right  to  those  possessions 
of  which  the  church  had  been  deprived ; and  their 
readmess^  to  acquiesce  in  every  arrangement  to  be 
made  by  the  legate.  His  decree  was  soon  afterwards 
published*  1.  That  all  cathedral  churches,  hospi- 
tals, and  schools  founded  during  the  schism,  should 
be  preserved;  2.  That  all  persons,  who  had  contracted 
marriage  within  the  prohibited  degrees  without  dis- 
pensation, should  remain  married J 3.  That  all  judicial 
processes,  made  before  the  ordinaries,  or  in  appeal 
before  delegates,  should  be  held  valid ; and  4.  That 
the  possessors  of  church  property  should  not,  either 
now  or  hereafter,  be  molested,  under  pretence  of  any 
canons  of  councils,  decrees  of  pope's,  or  censures  of  the 
church  • for  which  purpose,  in  virtue  of  the  authority 
vested  in  him,  he  took  from  all  spiritual  courts  and 
judges  the  cognizance  of  these  matters,  and  pro- 
nounced, beforehand,  all  such  processes  and  judgments 
invalid  and  of  no  effect.1 

1 The  next  year,  on  the  14th  of  July,  Paul  IV.  published  a bull, 
condemning  and  revoking,  in  general  terms,  the  alienations  of  church 
property  to  secular  uses. — Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  3.  This  bull,  however, 
did  not  regard  the  late  proceedings  in  England ; for,egli  dichiara  di 
parlare  di  quelle  alienazioni,  che  si  erano  fatte  senza  le  dovute 
solennita. — Becchetti,  Istoria,  x.  197.  But,  to  prevent  doubts  on 
the  subject,  Pole  obtained  from  him  a bull  expressly  excepting  the 
church  property  in  England  from  the  operation  of  the  second  bull, 
qua  hujus  regni  bona  ecclesiastica  ab  ejus  sanctitatis  revocatione 
nominatim  excipiuntur  (Poli  Ep.  v.  42,  Sept.  16,  1555);  and  also 
“ confirming  his  doings  respecting  assurance  of  abbey  lands,  &c.” — 
Journal  of  Commons,  42.  It  was  read  to  both  houses  at  the  opening 
of  parliament  on  the  23rd  of  October.  Besides  this,  the  cardinal 
obtained  from  him  a breve  declaratorium  ejus  bullse,  qua  bonorum 
ecclesiasticorum  alienationes  rescinduntur.  et  confirmatorium  eorum, 
quee  majestatibus  vestris  remisi. — Poli  Ep.  v.  85. 


ALIENATION  OF  CHURCH  LANDS. 


455 


In  the  meantime  a joint  committee  of  Lords  and 
Commons  had  been  actively  employed  in  framing  a 
most  important  and  comprehensive  bill,  which  de- 
serves the  attention  of  the  reader,  from  the  accuracy 
with  which  it  distinguishes  between  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  jurisdictions,  and  the  care  with  which 
it  guards  against  any  encroachment  on  the  part  of 
the  latter.  It  first  repeals  several  statutes  by  name, 
and  then,  in  general,  all  clauses,  sentences,  and  articles 
in  every  other  act  of  parliament  made  since  the 
twentieth  of  Henry  VIII.  against  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  pope's  holiness  or  see  apostolic.1  It 
next  recites  the  two  petitions,  and  the  dispensation 
of  the  legate ; and  enacts,  that  every  article  in  that 
dispensation  shall  be  reputed  good  and  effectual  in 
law,  and  may  be  alleged  and  pleaded  in  all  courts 
spiritual  and  temporal.  It  then  proceeds  to  state  that, 
though  the  legate  hath  by  his  decree  taken  away  all 
matter  of  impeachment,  trouble,  or  danger  to  the 
holders  of  church  property,  from  any  canon,  or  decree 
of  ecclesiastical  judge  or  council ; yet,  because  the 
title  of  lands  and  hereditaments  in  this  realm  is 
grounded  on  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  same,  and 
to  be  tried  and  judged  in  no  other  courts  than  those 
of  their  majesties,  it  is  therefore  enacted,  by  authority 

1 Most  readers  have  very  confused  and  incorrect  notions  of  the 
jurisdiction  which  the  pontiff,  in  virtue  of  his  supremacy,  claimed  to 
exercise  within  the  realm.  From  this  act,  and  the  statutes  which  it 
repeals,  it  follows,  that  that  jurisdiction  was  comprised  under  the 
following  heads  : i.  He  was  acknowledged  as  chief  bishop  of  the 
Christian  church,  with  authority  to  reform  and  redress  heresies, 
errors,  and  abuses  within  the  same.  2.  To  him  belonged  the  in- 
stitution or  confirmation  of  bishops  elect.  3.  He  could  grant  to 
clergymen  licenses  of  non-residence,  and  permission  to  hold  more 
than  one  benefice,  with  cure  of  souls.  4.  He  dispensed  with  the 
canonical  impediments  of  matrimony ; and,  5 . He  received  appeals 
from  the  spiritual  courts. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1555. 


Jan.  4, 


456 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

Y. 

A.D.  1555. 


of  parliament,  that  all  such  possessors  of  church  pro- 
perty shall  hold  the  same  in  manner  and  form  as  they 
would  have  done  had  this  act  never  been  made ; and, 
that  any  person  who  shall  molest  such  possessors  by 
process  out  of  any  ecclesiastical  court,  either  within  or 
without  the  realm,  shall  incur  the  penalty  of  premunire. 
Next  it  provides,  that  all  papal  bulls,  dispensations, 
and  privileges,  not  containing  matter  prejudicial  to  the 
royal  authority,  or  to  the  laws  of  the  realm,  may  be 
put  in  execution,  used,  and  alleged  in  all 'courts  what- 
soever ; and  concludes  by  declaring,  that  nothing  in 
this  act  shall  be  explained  to  impair  any  authority  or 
prerogative  belonging  to  the  crown  in  the  twentieth 
year  of  Henry  VIII. ; that  the  pope  shall  have  and 
enjoy,  without  diminution  or  enlargement,  the  same 
authority  and  jurisdiction  which  he  might  then  have 
lawfully  exercised;  and  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
bishops  shall  be  restored  to  that  state  in  which  it 
existed  at  the  same  period.  In  the  Lords,  the  bill 
was  read  thrice  in  two  days ; in  the  Commons,  it  was 
passed  after  a sharp  debate  on  the  third  reading.1 
Thus  was  re-established  in  England  the  whole  system 
of  religious  polity  which  had  prevailed  for  so  many 
centuries  before  Henry  VIII. 

The  French  ambassador  had  persuaded  himself  that 
the  great  object  of  the  emperor  was  to  employ  the 

1 Stat.  iv.  246 — 254.  From  the  Journals  it  appears  that  the 
subject  of  discussion  was  not  so  much  the  substance  of  the  bill,  as 
some  of  its  provisions  involving  particular  interests.  In  the  Lords, 
Bonner,  bishop  of  London,  voted  against  it;  the  Commons  added  two 
provisions  respecting  lands  to  be  hereafter  given  to  the  church,  and 
the  recovery  of  those  already  taken  from  it ; and  requested  the 
erasure  of  nineteen  lines  regarding  the  Bishop  ol  London  and  the 
lord  Wentworth.  The  Lords  agreed,  and  the  chancellor  cut  out  the 
nineteen  lines  with  a knife  ; yet  the  lord  Montague,  and  the  bishops 
of  London,  and  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  voted  against  the  bill  in  its 
amended  shape. — Journals,  484. 


ACT  OF  GRACE. 


457 


resources  of  England  against  his  adversary  the  king 
of  France ; and  that  the  fondness  of  Mary  for  her 
husband  would  induce  her  to  gratify  all  his  wishes, 
let  them  be  ever  so  illegal  or  unjust.  On  this  account, 
he  continued  to  intrigue  with  the  factious  ; he  warned 
them  that  England  would  soon  become  a province 
under  the  despotic  government  of  Spain  ; he  exhorted 
them  to  be  on  the  watch,  to  oppose  every  measure 
dictated  by  Philip,  and  to  preserve,  at  every  personal 
risk,  their  liberties  for  their  children,  and  the  succession 
to  the  crown  for  the  true  heir.  In  his  despatches  to 
his  court,  he  described  the  discontent  of  the  nation  as 
wound  up  to  the  highest  pitch  ; the  embers  of  revolt, 
he  said,  were  still  alive  ; in  a few  months,  perhaps  a 
few  weeks,  the  flame  would  burst  forthwith  redoubled 
violence.1  But  he  mistook  his  wishes  for  realities ; 
his  information  frequently  proved  erroneous ; and  his 
predictions  were  belied  by  the  event.  In  the  present 
parliament,  he  assured  his  sovereign,  that,  in  pursuance 
of  the  emperor’s  plan,  the  queen  would  ask  for  a 
matrimonial  crown  for  her  husband,  would  place  the 
whole  power  of  the  executive  government  in  his  hands, 
and  would  seek  to  have  him  declared  presumptive  heir 
to  the  crown.  What  projects  she  might  have  formed, 
we  know  not ; but  it  would  be  rash  to  judge  of  her 
intentions  from  the  malicious  conjectures  of  Noailles; 
and  the  fact  is,  that  no  such  measures  as  he  describes 
were  ever  proposed.  The  two  houses,  however,  joined 
in  a petition  to  Philip,  that,  “ if  it  should  happen  to 

1 Noailles,  iii.  318;  iv.  27,  62,  7 6,  153.  This  ambassador  found 
that  he  had  failed  in  the  object  of  his  mission,  in  his  intrigues  with 
the  discontented,  and  in  the  predictions  with  which  he  had  amused 
his  court.  After  this,  his  chagrin,  and  his  hatred  of  the  queen  and 
her  advisers,  betray  themselves  in  almost  every  page  of  his  despatches, 
and  detract  much  from  the  credit  which  might  otherwise  be  given  to 
his  representations. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1555. 


458 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

V. 

A.D.  1555. 


Jan.  16. 


Jan.  18. 


“ the  queen  otherwise  than  well,  in  the  time  of  her 
“ travail,  he  would  take  upon  himself  the  government 
“ of  the  realm  during  the  minority  of  her  majesty's 
“ issue,  with  the  rule,  order,  education,  and  go vern- 
“ ment  of  the  said  issue.”  The  king  signified  his 
assent ; and  an  act  passed,  intrusting  to  him  the 
government,  till  the  child,  if  a female,  were  fifteen,  if 
a male,  eighteen  years  old ; making  it  high  treason  to 
imagine  or  compass  his  death,  or  attempt  to  remove 
him  from  the  said  government  and  guardianship ; and 
binding  him,  in  the  execution  of  his  office,  to  all  the 
conditions  and  restrictions  which  were  contained  in 
the  original  treaty  of  marriage.1 

The  dissolution  of  the  parliament  was  followed  by 
an  unexpected  act  of  grace.  The  lord  chancellor, 
accompanied  by  several  members  of  the  council,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  Tower,  called  before  him  the  state 
prisoners,  still  confined  on  account  of  the  attempts 
of  Northumberland  and  Wyat,  and  informed  them 
that  the  king  and  queen  had,  at  the  intercession  of 
the  emperor,  ordered  them  to  be  discharged.2  The 

1 Noailles,  iv.  137.  Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  255.  An  unusual 
circumstance  occurred  about  the  close  of  the  session.  It  was  cus- 
tomary for  both  houses  to  adjourn  at  Christmas  over  the  holidays ; 
and  several  members  had  sent  for  their  servants  and  horses  to  visit 
their  families  during  the  recess.  But  on  the  22nd  of  December 
orders  were  issued,  that  neither  Lords  nor  Commons  should  depart 
before  the  end  of  the  parliament.  The  two  houses  continued  to  sit, 
but  thirty-seven  members  of  the  lower  absented  themselves,  in  op- 
position to  the  royal  command.  A bill  for  the  punishment  of  such 
knights  and  burgesses  as  should  neglect  their  duty  passed  the  Com- 
mons ; but  the  day  after  it  had  been  read  the  first  time  in  the  Lords, 
the  parliament  was  dissolved.  Griffith,  however,  the  attorney- 
general,  indicted  the  offenders  in  the  King’s  Bench.  Six  submitted, 
the  rest  traversed,  and  the  matter  was  suffered  to  die  away.  Lord 
Coke  represents  them  as  seceding  on  account  of  their  attachment  to 
the  reformed  church. — See  Cobbetfc’s  Parliamentary  History,  i.  625, 
and  the  Journals,  p.  41. 

2 They  were  Holgate,  archbishop  of  York,  Ambrose,  Robert, 


ELIZABETH  AND  COURTENAY. 


459 


same  favour  was  extended  to  Elizabeth  and  Courtenay,  chap. 
The  earl,  having  paid  his  respects  to  Philip  and  Mary,  a.d.  1555. 
received  a permission,  equivalent  to  a command,  to 
travel  for  his  improvement;  and  having  remained  for 
some  time  in  the  imperial  court  at  Brussels,  proceeded 
to  Italy,  with  recommendatory  letters  from  Philip  to 
the  princes  of  that  country.  It  was  reported  that  the. 
queen  proposed  at  the  same  time  to  send  Elizabeth  to 
Spain,  that  she  might  reside  in  some  convent,  but  was 
dissuaded  by  the  policy  of  her  husband,  who,  as  he 
had  married  to  secure  the  aid  of  England  in  defence 
of  his  dominions  in  the  Netherlands,  against  the  am- 
bitious designs  of  the  French  monarch,  now  brought 
forward  "his  wife’s  sister  as  presumptive  heir  to  the 
crown,  in  opposition  to  Mary  of  Scotland,  about  to  be 
married  to  the  dauphin  of  France.  On  the  departure 
of  Courtenay,  Elizabeth  reappeared  at  court.  By  the 
king  and  queen  she  was  treated  with  kindness  and 
distinction ; and,  after  a visit  of  some  months,  re- 
turned to  her  own  house  in  the  country.1  Philip 
made  her  a present  of  a diamond  valued  at  four 
thousand  ducats : to  Mary  he  had  given  another 
valued  at  eight  thousand.2 

In  consequence  of  the  act  restoring  the  exercise  of 
the  papal  authority  in  England,  the  viscount  Mon- 
tague, the  bishop  of  Ely,  and  Sir  Edward  Carne  had 
been  appointed  ambassadors  to  the  Homan  see.  But  Feb.  18. 
they  had  not  proceeded  far  on  their  journey  when 
Julius  died.  In  the  preceding  conclave  the  cardinal  March  23. 
Farnese  had  employed  his  influence  to  raise  Pole  to 

Henry,  and  Andrew  Dudley,  sons  to  the  late  Duke  of  Northumber- 
land, James  Croft,  Nicholas  Throckmorton,  &c. 

1 See  the  reports  of  Michele  and  Soriano  to  the  Venetian  senate ; 
also  Cabrera,  28. 

2 Fenclar’s  Despatches,  iii.  324. 


460 


MARY. 


chap,  the  papacy ; he  had  even  obtained  one  evening  the 
a.d.  1555.  requisite  number  of  votes ; but  the  English  cardinal, 
irresolute  and  unambitious,  bade  him  wait  till  the  fol- 
lowing morning,  and  on  that  morning  another  can- 
didate was  proposed  and  chosen.  On  the  present 
vacancy  Farnese  espoused  again  the  interests  of  his 
friend:  he  procured  from  the  French  king  letters  in 
favour  of  Pole ; and  hastened  with  these  documents 
April  9.  from  Avignon  to  Pome.  Before  his  arrival,  at  the 
very  opening  of  the  conclave,  Cervini  was  unani- 
mously elected, — a prelate  whose  acknowledged  merit 
awakened  the  most  flattering  expectations.  But  the 
new  pontiff,  who  had  taken  the  name  of  Marcellus  II., 
April  30.  died  within  one  and  twenty  days  ; and  the  friends  of 
Pole  laboured  a third  time  to  honour  him  with  the 
tiara.  Philip  and  Mary  and  Gardiner  employed  letters 
and  messengers : the  French  king,  though  it  was 
suspected  that  he  secretly  gave  his  interest  to  the 
cardinal  of  Ferrara,  promised  his  best  services ; and 
Farnese,  without  waiting  for  new  credentials,  exhi- 
bited the  letters  which  he  had  brought  to  the  last 
conclave.  But  the  cardinals,  as  well  in  the  imperial 
as  in  the  French  interest,  refused  their  voices ; the 
former  believing  from  past  events  that  Pole  was  in 
secret  an  object  of  suspicion  to  their  sovereign,  the 
latter  alleging  that  they  could  not  vote  without  new 
instructions  in  his  favour.  Had  he  been  present,  he 
might  have  obtained  the  requisite  majority  of  suf- 
May  23.  frages;  in  his  absence  Caraffa  was  chosen,  and  took 
the  name  of  Paul  IY.  On  the  very  day  of  the  coro- 
June  5.  nation  of  this  pontiff,  the  English  ambassadors  reached 
Pome.  Pole  had  foreseen  that  the  new  title  of  king 
and  queen  of  Ireland,  assumed  by  Philip  and  Mary, 
in  imitation  of  Henry  and  Edward,  might  create  some 
difficulty,  and  had  therefore  requested  that  Ireland 


EMBASSY  TO  HOME. 


461 


might  be  declared  a kingdom  before  the  arrival  of  the  chap. 
ambassadors.1  But  the  death  of  Julius,  succeeded  by  a.d.  '1555. 
that  of  Marcellus,  had  prevented  those  pontiffs  from 
complying  with  his  advice ; and  the  first  act  of  the 
new  pope,  after  his  coronation,  was  to  publish  a bull,  June  7. 
by  which,  at  the  petition  of  Philip  and  Mary,  he  raised 
the  lordship  of  Ireland  to  the  dignity  of  a kingdom.2 
Till  this  had  been  done,  the  ambassadors  waited  with- 
out the  city : three  days  later  they  were  publicly  June  10. 
introduced.  They  acknowledged  the  pontiff  as  head 
of  the  universal  church,  presented  to  him  a copy  ol 
the  act  by  which  his  authority  had  been  re-established, 
and  solicited  him  to  ratify  the  absolution  pronounced 
by  the  legate,  and  to  confirm  the  bishoprics  erected 
during  the  schism.  Paul  received  them  with  kind- 
ness, and  granted  their  requests.  Lord  Montague  and 
the  bishop  of  Ely  were  dismissed  with  the  usual  pre- 
sents ; Carne  remained  as  resident  ambassador.3 

1 Poli  Ep.  1.  v.  ep.  5. 

2 See  the  bull  in  Bsovius,  Ann.  Eccl.  tom.  xx.  p.  301 ; and  the 
extract  from  Act.  Consistorial,  inter  Poli  Ep.  v.  136.  It  was  sealed 
with  lead  ; but  Pole  was  careful  to  procure  a second  copy  sealed  with 
gold.  (Ibid.  42.  Such  was  the  custom.  Thus  the  bull  giving  to 
Henry  VIII.  the  title  of  Defender  of  the  Faith  has  a gold  seal  to  it.) 

As  the  natives  of  Ireland  had  maintained  that  the  kings  of  England 
originally  held  Ireland  by  the  donation  of  Adrian  IV.,  and  had  lost 
it  by  their  defection  from  the  communion  of  Rome,  the  council  deli- 
vered the  second  bull  to  Dr.  Carey,  the  new  archbishop  of  Dublin, 
with  orders  that  it  should  be  deposited  in  the  treasury,  after  copies 
had  been  made,  and  circulated  throughout  the  island. — Extract  from 
Council  Book,  Archasol.  xviii.  183. 

3 The  ambassadors  had  acted  under  the  authority  originally  given 
to  them,  to  negotiate  with  the  late  pontiff ; but  alter  the  departure 
of  Lord  Montague  other  credentials  arrived,  by  which  they  were 
deputed  ambassadors  to  the  new  pope.  The  bishop  and  Carne,  in 
consequence,  went  through  the  former  ceremonial  a second  time,  but 
in  a private  consistory,  on  June  21. — See  Paul’s  letter  to  the  king 
and  queen,  Poli  Ep.  v.  136 — 139.  A very  erroneous  statement  of 
the  whole  transaction  has  been  copied  from  Fra  Paolo  by  most  of  our 
historians  : the  above  is  taken  from  the  original  documents  furnished 
by  Pole’s  letters. 


462 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

PERSECUTION  OF  THE  REFORMEKS: — SUFFERINGS  OF  RIDLEY  AND  LATI- 
MER  RECANTATIONS  AND  DEATH  OF  CRANMER DURATION  AND 

SEVERITY  OF  THE  PERSECUTION DEPARTURE  OF  PHILIP  — DEATH 

OF  GARDINER SURRENDER  BY  THE  CROWN  OF  TENTHS  AND  FIRST- 

FRUITS— TREASONABLE  ATTEMPTS WAR  WITH  FRANCE  AND  SCOT- 
LAND  VICTORY  AT  ST.  QUINTIN LOSS  OF  CALAIS DEATH  AND 

CHARACTER  OF  THE  QUEEN. 

It  was  the  lot  of  Mary  to  live  in  an  age  of  religious 
intolerance,  when  to  punish  the  professors  of  erroneous 
doctrine  was  inculcated  as  a duty,  no  less  by  those 
whfc  rejected,  than  by  those  who  asserted  the  papal 
authority.1  It  might  perhaps  have  been  expected 
that  the  reformers,  from  their  sufferings  under  Henry 
VIII.,  would  have  learned  to  respect  the  rights  of 
conscience.  Experience  proved  the  contrary.  They 
had  no  sooner  obtained  the  ascendancy  during  the 
short  reign  of  Edward,  than  they  displayed  the  same 
persecuting  spirit  which  they  had  formerly  condemned, 
burning  the  Anabaptist,  and  preparing  to  burn  the 
Catholic  at  the  stake,  for  no  other  crime  than  adher- 
ence to  religious  opinion.  The  former,  by  the  existing 
law,  was  already  liable  to  the  penalty  of  death ; the 
latter  enjoyed  a precarious  respite,  because  his  belief 
had  not  yet  been  pronounced  heretical  by  any  acknow- 

1 This  is  equally  true  of  the  foreign  religionists. — See  Calvin,  de 
supplicio  Serveti ; Beza,  de  llsereticisa  civili  magistratu  puniendis  ; 
and  Melanctlion,  in  locis  Com.  c.  xxxii.  de  Ecclesia. 


RELIGIOUS  INTOLERANCE  OF  THE  AGE.  463 


ledged  authority.  But  the  zeal  of  archbishop  Cranmer 
observed  and  supplied  this  deficiency;  and  in  the  code 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline  which  he  compiled  for  the 
government  of  the  reformed  church,  he  was  careful 
to  class  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  ancient 
worship  with  those  more  recently  promulgated  by 
Muncer  and  Socinus.  By  the  new  canon  law  of  the 
metropolitan,  to  believe  in  transubstantiation,  to  admit 
the  papal  supremacy,  and  to  deny  justification  by  faith 
only,  were  severally  made  heresy;  and  it  was  ordained 
that  individuals  accused  of  holding  heretical  opinions 
should  be  arraigned  before  the  spiritual  courts,  should 
be  excommunicated  on  conviction ; and  after  a respite 
of  sixteen  days  should,  if  they  continued  obstinate,  be 
delivered  to  the  civil  magistrate,  to  suffer  the  punish- 
ment provided  by  law.1  Fortunately  for  the  profes- 

1 Ad  extremum  ad  civilem  magistratum  ablegatur  puniendus. — 
Reform  leg.  cont.  Hasret.  c.  3.  To  elude  the  inference  which  may 
be  drawn  from  this  passage,  it  has  been  ingeniously  remarked,  that 
“ there  is  a wide  interval  between  the  infliction  of  punishment  and 
u the  privation  of  life." — Mackintosh,  ii.  318,  not.  But,  1.  even 
then,  this  passage  establishes  the  principle  of  religious  persecution, 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  inflict  punishment  on 
heretics  condemned  by  ecclesiastical  authority.  2.  There  cannot 
be  a doubt  that  the  punishment  here  contemplated  is  the  privation 
of  life.  Such  was  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  the  legal  phraseology 
of  the  age.  For  this  we  have  the  testimony  of  Cranmer  himself,  who 
must  be  the  best  interpreter  of  his  own  language.  When  he  con- 
demned Anne  Bocher  to  be  delivered  to  the  civil  magistrate,  and 
officially  informed  Edward  that  she  was  to  be  deervsedly  punished 
(condigna  animadversione  plectendam — Wilk.  Con.  iv.  44),  what  was 
the  punishment  which  he  prevailed  on  the  reluctant  prince  to  inflict  ? 
Death  by  burning.  When  he  pronounced  the  same  sentence  on  Van 
Parris,  and  gave  similar  information  to  the  king  (animadversione 
vestra  regia puniendum — Ibid.  iv.  45),  what  did  the  word  puniendum 
import  ? Death  by  burning.  Again,  it  has  been  remarked  that 
in  a MS.  copy  which  belonged  to  the  archbishop  (Harl.  MSS. 
426),  after  “puniendus”  is  added,  in  the  hand,  as  is  thought,  of 
Peter  Martyr,  vel  ut  in  perpetuum  pellatur  exilium  vel  ad  aeternas 
carceris  deprimatur  tonebras  (Todd,  ii.  334).  But  it  is  plain  that, 
on  revision,  this  suggestion  was  abandoned;  for  it  was  omitted  “in 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555. 


464 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

AD.  IS55* 


sors  of  the  ancient  faith,  Edward  died  before  this  code 
had  obtained  the  sanction  of  the  legislature : by  the 
accession  of  Mary  the  power  of  the  sword  passed  from 
the  hands  of  one  religious  party  to  those  of  the  other ; 
and  within  a short  time  Cranmer  and  his  associates 
perished  in  the  flames  which  they  had  prepared  to 
kindle  for  the  destruction  of  their  opponents. 

With  whom  the  persecution  under  Mary  originated 
is  a matter  of  uncertainty.  By  the  reformed  writers 
the  infamy  of  the  measure  is  usually  allotted  to  Gar- 
diner, more,  as  far  as  I can  judge,  from  conjecture 
and  prejudice  than  from  real  information.  The  charge 
is  not  supported  by  any  authentic  document ; it  is 
weakened  by  the  general  tenour  of  the  chancellor's 
conduct.1  All  that  we  know  with  certainty  is,  that 

“ the  later  and  more  perfect  draft  of  these  laws,  as  they  were  com- 
“ pleted  and  finished  in  King  Edward’s  reign,  and  were  published  by 
“ Archbishop  Parker  in  1571.’' — Strype,  134. 

1 The  only  instance  in  which  Gardiner  was  known  to  take  any 
part  in  the  persecution  will  be  mentioned  later,  and  then  he  acted 
in  virtue  of  his  office  as  chancellor.  When  at  a later  period  Sir 
Francis  Hastings  applied  to  him  the  epithet  “ bloody,”  Persons 
indignantly  answered  : “ Verely  I beleeve  that  if  a man  should  ask 
“ any  good-natured  Protestant  that  lived  in  Queen  Maries  tyme,  and 
“ had  both  wit  to  judge  and  indifferency  to  speake  the  truthe  without 
“ passion,  he  will  confesse  that  no  one  great  man  in  that  govern- 
“ ment  was  further  off  from  blood  and  bloodiness,  or  from  crueltie 
“ and  revenge,  than  Bishop  Gardiner,  who  was  known  to  be  a most 
“ tender-harted  and  myld  man  in  that  behalf ; in  so  much  that  it 
“ was  sometymes,  and  by  some  great  personages,  objected  to  him 
“ for  no  small  fault,  to  be  ever  full  of  compassion  in  the  office  and 
“ charge  that  he  bare : yea,  to  him  especially  it  was  imputed,  that 
“ none  of  the  greatest  and  most  knowen  Protestantes  in  Queen 
“ Maries  reigne,  were  ever  called  to  accompt,  or  put  to  trooble  for 
“religion.” — Ward-worde,  p.  42.  I add  the  following  testimony 
of  Ascham  : — “ Noe  bishop  in  Quene  Marye’s  days  wold  have  dealt 
“ soe  with  me,  for  such  estimac’on  en  those  even  the  learnedst  and 
“ wisest  men  (as  Gardiner,  Heath,  and  Cardinal  Poole)  made  of  my 
“ poore  service,  that  although  they  knew  perfectly  that  in  religion 
“ by  open  writing  and  privy  talke  I was  contrary  unto  them,  yett 
“ that,  when  Sir  Francis  Inglefieldby  name  did  note  me  specially  at 
“the  councell  board,  Gardiner  would  not  suffer  me  to  be  called 


LAWS  AGAINST  HERESY. 


465 


after  the  queen’s  marriage  this  question  was  frequently 
debated  by  the  lords  of  the  council ; and  that  their 
final  resolution  was  not  communicated  to  her  before 
the  beginning  of  November.  Mary  returned  the  fol- 
lowing answer  in  writing : “ Touching  the  punish- 
‘*ment  of  heretics,  we  thinketh  it  ought  to  be  done 
“ without  rashness,  not  leaving  in  the  mean  time  to 
“ do  justice  to  such  as,  by  learning,  would  seem  to 
“ deceive  the  simple ; and  the  rest  so  to  be  used,  that 
“ the  people  might  well  perceive  them  not  to  be  con- 
“ demned  without  just  occasion;  by  which  they  shall 
“ both  understand  the  truth,  and  beware  not  to  do 
“ the  like.  And  especially  within  London,  I would 
“ wish  none  to  be  burnt  without  some  of  the  council’s 
“ presence,  and  both  there  and  every  where  good 
“ sermons  at  the  same  time.”1 

Though  it  had  been  held  in  the  last  reign  that  by 
the  common  law  of  the  land  heresy  was  a crime 
punishable  with  death,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to 
revive  the  three  statutes  which  had  formerly  been 
enacted  to  suppress  the  doctrines  of  the  Lollards.2  An 
act  for  this  purpose  was  brought  into  the  Commons 
in  the  beginning  of  the  next  year  : every  voice  was  in 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555. 


u thither,  nor  touched  elsewhere,  saying  such  words  of  me  as  in  a 
tC  letter,  though  letters  cannot  blushe,  yet  should  I blushe,  to  write 
“ therein  to  your  lo’pp — Winchester’s  good  will  stood  notin  speake- 
“ ing  fare,  and  wishing  well,  but  he  did  indeed  that  for  me,  whereby 
“ my  wife  and  children  shall  live  the  better  when  I am  gone.” — 
Koger  Ascham  to  Lord  Leicester,  in  Whitaker’s  History  of  Rich- 
mondshire,  p.  286.  See  also  other  instances  of  Gardiner’s  modera- 
tion in  Fuller,  1.  viii.  p.  17  ; and  Strype’s  Life  of  Sir  Thos.  Smith, 
p.  48,  edit.  1820. 

1 The  date  of  this  paper,  which  disproves  the  pretended  dispute 
between  Gardiner  and  Pole  in  Hume,  c.  xxxvii.,  is  evident  from  its 
mentioning  those  who  “ have  to  talk  with  my  lord  cardinal  at  his 
“first  coming.”  It  is  in  Collier,  ii.  371.  Of  course  Pole  had  not 
yet  arrived  to  hold  the  language  attributed  to  him  by  the  historian. 

2 See  this  History,  vol.  iii,  p.  469,  478  ; Stat.  iv.  244. 

YOL.  Y.  2 H 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555. 


466  MARY. 

/ 

its  favour;  and  in  tlie  course  of  four  days  it  had 
passed  the  two  houses.  The  reformed  preachers  were 
alarmed.  The  most  eminent  among  them  had  long 
since  been  committed  to  prison ; some  as  the  accom- 
plices of  Northumberland,  or  Suffolk,  or  Wyat,  others 
for  having  presumed  to  preach  without  license,  and 
several  on  charges  of  disorderly  or  seditious  conduct. 
To  ward  off  the  impending  danger,  they  composed 
and  forwarded  petitions,  including  their  confession  of 
faith,  both  to  the  king  and  queen,  and  to  the  lords 
and  commons  assembled  in  parliament.  In  these 
instruments  they  declare,  that  the  canonical  books  of 
the  Old,  and  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  are 
the  true  word  of  God ; that  the  Catholi(^jphurch  ought 
to  be  heard,  as  being  the  Spouse  of  Clmst ; and  that 
those  who  refuse  to  hear  her  “ obeying  the  word  of 
“ her  husband,”  are  heretics  and  schismatics.  They 
profess  to  believe  all  the  articles  of  doctrine  “ set 
“ forth  in  the  symbols  of  the  councils  of  Nice,  of 
“ Constantinople,  of  Ephesus,  of  Chalcedon,  and  of 
“ the  first  and  fourth  of  Toledo ; and  in  the  creeds  of 
“ the  apostles,  of  Athanasius,  of  Ireliseus,  of  Tertullian, 
“ and  of  Damasus  ; so  that  whosoever  doth  not  believe 
“ generally  and  particularly  the  doctrine  of  those 
“ symbols,  they  hold  him  to  err  from  the  truth.” 
They  reject  free-will,  merits,  works  of  supererogation, 
confession  and  satisfaction,  the  invocation  of  the  saints, 
and  the  use  in  the  liturgy  of  an  unknown  tongue. 
They  admit  two  sacraments, — baptism,  and  the  Lord’s 
supper ; but  disallow  transubstantiation,  communion 
under  one  kind,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the 
inhibition  of  marriage  to  the  clergy.  They  offer  to 
prove  the  truth  of  their  belief  by  public  disputation ; 
and  are  willing  to  submit  to  the  worst  of  punish- 


PERSECUTION. 


467 


ments,  if  they  do  not  show  that  the  doctrine  of  the  chap. 
church,  the  homilies,  and  the  service  set  forth  by  King  a.d.  1554. 
Edward,  are  most  agreeable  to  the  articles  of  Chris- 
tian faith.  Lastty,  they  warn  all  men  against  sedition 
and  rebellion,  and  exhort  them  to  obey  the  queen  in 
all  matters  which  are  not  contrary^  to  the  obedience 
due  to  God,  and  to  suiter  patiently  as  the  will  and 
pleasure  of  the  higher  powers  shall  adjudge.1 

While  the  ministers  in  prison  sought  to  mollify 
their  sovereign  by  this  dutiful  address,  their  brethren 
at  liberty  provoked  chastisement  by  the  intemperance 
of  their  zeal.  On  the  eve  of  the  new  year,  Ross,  a Dec.  31. 
celebrated  preacher,  collected  a congregation  towards 
midnight ; administered  the  communion,  and  openly 
prayed  that  God  would  either  convert  the  heart  of 
the  queen,  or  take  her  out  of  this  world.  He  was 
surprised  in  the  fact,  and  imprisoned  with  his  dis-  jauSi6. 
ciples ; and  the  parliament  hastened  to  make  it 
treason  to  have  prayed  since  the  commencement  of 
the  session,  or  to  pray  hereafter,  for  the  queen's  death. 

It  was,  however,  provided  that  all  who  had  been 
already  committed  for  this  offence  might  recover 
their  liberty,  by  making  an  humble-  protestation  of 
sorrow,  and  a promise  of  amendment.2 * 

The  new  year  opened  to  the  reformed  preachers 
with  a lowering  agjflj^%ef#re  the  close  of  the  month 
the  storm  burst  on  their  heads.  On  the  twenty-  Jan.  22. 
second  of  January,  the  chancellor  called  before  him 
the  chief  of  the  prisoners,  apprized  them  of  the 
statutes  enacted  in  the  last  parliament,  and  put  them 
in  mind  of  the  punishment  which  awaited  their  dis- 
obedience. In  a few  days  the  court  was  opened.  Jan.  28. 


% 


1 Strype,  iii.  Rec.  42.  Foxe,  iii.  97. 

2 Stat.  of  Realm,  iv.  254. 

2 H 2 


468 


MARY. 


chap.  Gardiner  presided,  and  was  attended  by  thirteen  other 
a.d.  1555.  bishops,  and  a crowd  of  lords  and  knights.  Six  pri- 
soners were  called  before  them ; of  whom  one  pre- 
tended to  recant ; another  petitioned  for  time ; and 
the  other  four,  Hooper,  the  deprived  bishop  of  Glou- 
cester, Rogers,  a prebendary  of  St.  Paul's,  Saunders, 
rector  of  Allhallows,  in  London,  and  Taylor,  rector  of 
Hadley,  in  Suffolk,  replied,  that  their  consciences 
forbade  them  to  subscribe  to  the  doctrines  now  estab- 
lished by  law,  and  that  the  works  of  Gardiner  himself 
had  taught  them  to  reject  the  authority  of  the  bishop 
of  Rome.  A delay  of  twenty-four  hours  was  offered 
Jan.  29.  them  : on  their  second  refusal  they  were  excommuni- 
cated; and  excommunication  was  followed  by  the 
delivery  of  the  recusants  to  the  civil  power.  Rogers 
Feb.  4.  was  the  first  victim.  He  perished  at  the  stake  in 
Feb.  8.  Smithfield ; Saunders  underwent  a similar  fate  at 
Feb.  9.  Coventry,  Hooper  at  Gloucester,  and  Taylor  at  Had- 
ley. An  equal  constancy  was  displayed  by  all : and, 
though  pardon  was  offered  them  to  the  last  moment, 
they  scorned  to  purchase  the  continuance  of  life  by 
feigning  an  assent  to  doctrines  which  they  did  not 
believe.  They  were  the  protomartyrs  of  the  reformed 
church  of  England. 

To  give  solemnity  to  these,  the  first  prosecutions 
under  the  revived  statutes,  they  had  been  conducted 
before  the  lord  chancellor.  But  whether  it  was,  that 
Gardiner  disapproved  of  the  measure,  or  that  he  was 
called  away  by  more  important  duties,  he  never  after- 
wards took  his  seat  on  the  bench,  but  transferred  the 
ungracious  office,  in  the  metropolis,  to  Bonner,  bishop 
of  London.  That  prelate,  accompanied  by  the  lord 
mayor  and  sheriffs,  and  several  members  of  the  council, 
Feb.  9.  excommunicated  six  other  prisoners,  and  delivered 


SERMON  BY  CASTRO.  469 

ithem  to  the  civil  power.  But  the  next  day,  Al- 
phonso  di  Castro,  a Spanish  friar,  confessor  to 
Philip,  preached  before  the  court,  and,  to  the  asto- 
nishment of  his  hearers,  condemned  these  proceedings 
in  the  most  pointed  manner.  He  pronounced  them 

(contrary,  not  only  to  the  spirit,  but  to  the  text  of  the 
gospel : it  was  not  by  severity,  but  by  mildness,  that 
men  were  to  be  brought  into  the  fold  of  Christ ; and 
it  v^as  the  duty  of  the  bishops,  not  to  seek  the  death, 
but  to  instruct  the  ignorance,  of  their  misguided 
brethren.  Men  were  at  a loss  to  account  for  this 
discourse,  whether  it  were  spontaneous  on  the  part 
of  the  friar,  or  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  the 
policy  of  Philip,  or  by  the  humanity  of  the  cardinal, 
or  by  the  repugnance  of  the  prelates.  It  made,  how- 
ever, a deep  impression;  the  execution  of  the  pri- 
soners was  suspended  ; the  question  was  again  debated 
in  the  council,  and  five  weeks  elapsed  before  the 
advocates  of  severity  could  obtain  permission  to  re- 
kindle the  fires  of  Smithfield.1 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  revival  of  the  persecu- 
tion was  provoked  by  the  excesses  which  were,  at  this 
time,  committed  by  the  fanaticism  of  some  among  the 
gospellers,2  and  by  the  detection  of  a new  conspiracy 
which  had  been  organized  in  the  counties  of  Cam- 
bridge, Suffolk,  and  Norfolk.  As  soon  as  the  ring- 
leaders were  arrested,  and  committed  to  the  Tower, 
the  magistrates  received  instructions  to  watch  over 
the  public  peace  in  their  respective  districts ; to  ap- 
prehend the  propagators  of  seditious  reports,  the 
preachers  of  erroneous  doctrine,  the  procurers  of  secret 
meetings,  and  those  vagabonds  who  had  no  visible 

1 Strype,  iii.  209. 

2 See  examples  in  Strype,  210,  212. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D-  1555- 
Feb.  10. 


March  16. 


March  18. 


March  26. 


470 


MARY. 


chap,  means  of  subsistence;  to  try,  by  virtue  of  a commission 
a.d.  1555.  of  oyer  and  terminer,  the  prisoners  charged  with  mur- 
der, felony,  and  other  civil  offences  ; and,  with  respect 
to  those  accused  of  heresy,  to  reform  them  by  admo- 
nition, but,  if  they  continued  obstinate,  to  send  them 
before  the  ordinary,  that  “they  might  by  charitable 
“ instruction,  be  removed  from  their  naughty  opinions, 
“ or  be  ordered  according  to  the  laws  provided  in  that 
“ behalf/*1  In  obedience  to  this  circular,  several  of 
the  preachers,  with  the  most  zealous  of  their  disciples, 
were  apprehended,  and  transmitted  to  the  bishops, 
who,  in  general,  declined  the  odious  task  of  proceed- 
ing against  them,  on  some  occasions  refusing,  under 
different  pretexts,  to  receive  the  prisoners,  on  others, 
suffering  the  charge  to  lie  unheard  until  it  was  for- 
gotten. This  reluctance  of  the  prelates  was  remarked 
May  16.  by  the  lord  treasurer,  the  marquess  of  Winchester,  who 
May  24.  complained  to  the  council,  and  procured  a reprimand 
to  be  sent  to  Bonner,  stating  that  the  king  and  queen 
marvelled  at  his  want  of  zeal  and  diligence,  and  requir- 
ing him  to  proceed  according  to  law,  for  the  advance- 
ment of  God’s  glory,  and  the  better  preservation  of 
the  peace  of  .the  realm/  The  prelates  no  longer  liesi- 

1 Strype,  iii.  213,  214.  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  283.  Burnet  tells  us,  ii. 
347,  and  Hume  gravely  repeats  the  information,  c.  xxxvii.,  that  this 
was  an  attempt  to  introduce  the  Spanish  inquisition.  The  difference 
was  immense.  The  magistrates  were  here  commanded  to  send  spi- 
ritual offenders  before  the  ordinary  ; it  was  the  leading  feature  in  the 
inquisition,  that  it  took  the  cognizance  of  spiritual  offences  from  the 
ordinary.  In  effect,  the  inquisition  was  not  introduced  into  England 
before  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  when  the  High  Commission  court  was 
established  on  similar  principles,  and,  in  a short  time,  obtained  and 
exercised  the  same  powers  as  the  Spanish  inquisition. — See  those 
powers  in  Rymer,  xvi.  291 — 297,  546 — 551. 

2 Foxe,  iii.  208.  Strype,  iii.  217.  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  285.  From 
this  reprimand,  I have  been  inclined  to  doubt  whether  Bonner  really 
deserved  all  the  odium  which  has  been  heaped  upon  him.  It  cer- 
tainly fell  to  his  lot,  as  bishop  of  London,  to  condemn  a great  number 


RIDLEY  AND  LATIMER. 


471 


tated ; and  of  the  prisoners  sent  before  them  by  the  chap. 
magistrates,  many  recanted,  but  many  also  refused  to  a.d.  1555. 
listen  to  their  exhortations,  and  defied  their  authority. 
Conviction  followed  conviction ; and  the  fate  of  one 
victim  served  only  to  encourage  others  to  imitate  his 
constancy.  To  describe  the  sufferings  of  each  indivi- 
dual would  fatigue  the  patience,  and  torture  the  feel- 
ings of  the  reader;  I shall  therefore  content  myself 
with  laying  before  him  the  last  moments  of  Cranmer, 

Ridley,  and  Latimer,  the  most  ^distinguished  among 
the  English  reformers.  During  the  preceding  reign 
they  had  concurred  in  sending  the  Anabaptists  to  the 
stake  : in  the  present  they  were  compelled  to  suffer 
the  same  punishment  which  they  had  so  recently 
inflicted. 

The  history  of  the  archbishop  has  been  sufficiently 
detailed  in  the  preceding  pages.  Ridley  was  born  at 
Wilmontswick  in  Tynedale,  had  studied  at  Cam- 
bridge, Paris,  and  Louvain,  and,  on  his  return  to  Eng-  1529. 
land,  obtained  preferment  in  the  church  by  the  favour 

of  tlie  gospellers ; but  I can  find  no  proof  that  he  was  a persecutor 
from  choice,  or  went  in  search  of  victims.  They  were  sent  to  him 
by  the  council,  or  by  commissioners  appointed  by  the  council  (Foxe, 
iii.  208,  210,  223,  317,  328,  344,  522,  588,  660,  723.  Strype,  iii. 

239,  240)  ; and  as  the  law  stood,  he  could  not  refuse  to  proceed,  and 
deliver  them  over  to  the  civil  power.  He  was,  however,  careful  in 
the  proceedings  to  exact  from  the  prisoners,  and  to  put  on  record, 
the  names  of  the  persons  by  whom,  and  a statement  of  the  reasons  for 
which,  they  had  been  sent  before  him. -^Foxe,  iii.  514,593.  Several 
of  the  letters  from  the  council  show  that  he  stood  in  need  of  a 
stimulus  to  goad  him  to  the  execution  of  this  unwelcome  office;  and 
he  complained  much  that  he  was  compelled  to  try  prisoners  who  were 
not  of  his  own  diocese.  “ I am,”  said  he  to  Philpot,  u right  sorry 
“ for  your  trouble  ; neither  would  I you  should  think  that  I am  the 
“ cause  thereof.  I marvel  that  other  men  will  trouble  me  with  their 
11  matters,  but  I must  be  obedient  to  my  betters.  And  I fear  men 
“ speak  of  me  otherwise  than  I deserve.” — Foxe,  iii.  462.  Of  the 
council,  the  most  active  in  these  prosecutions,  either  from  choice  or 
from  duty,  was  the  marquess  of  Winchester. — See  Foxe,  iii.  203, 

208, 317. 


472 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

- A.D.  1529. 


*547- 
Sept,  5. 


1SS0. 
April  1. 


*553- 
July  26. 


of  Cranmer.  During  the  reign  of  Henry  he  imitated 
his  patron,  by  conforming  to  the  theological  caprice 
of  the  monarch ; but  on  the  accession  of  Edward  he 
openly  avowed  his  sentiments,  and  gave  his  valuable 
aid  to  the  metropolitan.  His  services  were  rewarded 
with  the  bishopric  of  Rochester,  and,  on  the  depriva- 
tion of  Bonner,  with  that  of  London ; and  as,  under 
Henry,  he  had  been  employed  to  examine  and  detect 
sacramentaries,  so,  under  the  son  of  Henry,  he  sat 
in  judgment  at  the  condemnation  of  heretics.1  In 
learning  he  was  acknowledged  superior  to  the  other 
reformed  prelates  ; and  his  refusal  to  avail  himself  of 
the  permission  to  marry,  though  he  condemned  not 
the  marriages  of  others,  added  to  his  reputation. 
Unfortunately  his  zeal  for  the  new  doctrines  led  him 
to  support  the  treasonable  projects  of  Northumber- 
land ; and  his  celebrated  sermon  against  the  claims 
of  Mary  and  Elizabeth  furnished  sufficient  ground  for 
his  committal  to  the  Tower.  There  he  had  the  weak- 
ness to  betray  his  conscience  by  conforming  to  the 
ancient  worship  ; but  his  apostasy  was  severely  lashed 
by  the  pen  of  Bradford ; and  Ridley,  by  his  speedy 
repentance  and  subsequent  resolution,  consoled  and 
edified  his  afflicted  brethren.2 

Latimer,  at  the  commencement  of  his  career,  dis- 
played little  of  that  strength  of  mind,  or  that  stubborn- 
ness of  opinion,  which  we  expect  to  find  in  the  man 
who  aspires  to  the  palm  of  martyrdom.  He  first 
attracted  notice  by  the  violence  of  his  declamations 
against  Melancthon  and  the  Gferman  reformers ; then 
professed  himself  their  disciple  and  advocate ; and 


1 State  Papers,  i.  843.  Wilk.  Con.  iv.  45. 

2 “He  never  after  polluted  himself  with  that  filthy  dregs  of  anti- 
“ Christian  service.” — Foxe,  iii.  836. 


INVECTIVES  OF  LATIMER.  473 

ended  by  publicly  renouncing  tbeir  doctrine,  at  the 
command  of  Cardinal  Wolsey.  Two  years  had  not 
elapsed,  before  he  was  accused  of  reasserting  what  he 
had  abjured.  The  archbishop  excommunicated  him 
for  contumacy ; and  a tardy  and  reluctant  abjuration 
saved  him  from  the  stake.  Again  he  relapsed ; but 
appealed  from  the  bishops  to  the  king.  Henry  re- 
jected the  appeal;  and  Latimer  on  his  knees  acknow- 
ledged his  error,  craved  pardon  of  the  convocation, 
and  promised  amendment.1  He  had,  however,  power- 
ful friends  at  court — Butts  the  king’s  physician,  Crom- 
well the  vicar-general,  and  Anne  Boleyn  the  queen 
consort.  By  the  last  he  was  retained  as  chaplain. 
Henry  heard  him  preach ; and,  delighted  with  the 
coarseness  of  his  invectives  against  the  papal  authority, 
gave  him  the  bishopric  of  Worcester.  In  this  situa- 
tion he  was  cautious  not  to  offend  by  too  open  an 
avowal  of  his  opinions ; but  the  debate  on  the  Six 
Articles  put  his  orthodoxy  to  the  test ; and  with 
Cranmer  he  ventured  to  oppose  the  doctrine,  but  had 
not  the  good  fortune  with  Cranmer  to  lull  the  sus- 
picion, of  the  royal  theologian.  Henry  was,  however, 
satisfied  with  his  resignation  of  the  bishopric,  and 
suffered  him  still  to  officiate  as  vicar  of  St.  Bride’s. 
Yet  there  he  contrived  to  involve  himself  in  new 
difficulties.  He  was  brought  with  Crome  and  other 
gospellers  before  the  royal  commissioners.  They 
boldly  avowed  their  belief,  and  perished  for  it  at  the 
stake ; lie  disguised  his  under  evasive  and  ambiguous 
language,  which,  though  it  deceived  no  one,  saved  him 
from  the  fate  of  his  colleagues.2  He  was  permitted  to 

1 Foxe,  iii,  379,  383.  Wilk.  Cone.  iii.  748,  749. 

* See  State  Papers  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  i.  p.  846,  848, 
850. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1553. 
1529. 

i53i- 

1532. 


IS3S- 

*539- 

J uly  1. 

1546. 
May  9. 

July  16. 


474 


MARY. 


chap,  languish  in  prison,  till  the  death  of  the  king  and  the 
a.d.  1546.  accession  of  Edward  restored  him  to  liberty  and 
recalled  him  to  court.  As  preacher  to  the  infant 
monarch,  he  lashed  with  apparent  indifference  the 
vices  of  all  classes  of  men ; inveighed  with  intrepidity 
against  the  abuses  which  already  disfigured  the  new 
church;  and  painted  in  the  most  hideous  or  most 
ludicrous  colours  the  practices  of  the  ancient  worship. 
His  eloquence  was  bold  and  vehement,  but  poured 
forth  in  coarse  and  sarcastic  language,  and  seasoned 
with  quaint  conceits,  low  jests,  and  buffoonery.  Such, 
however,  as  it  was,  it  gratified  the  taste  of  his  hearers  ; 
and  the  very  boys  in  the  streets,  as  he  proceeded  to 
preach,  would  follow  at  his  heels,  exclaiming,  “ Have 
at  them,  Father  Latimer,  have  at  them.”  But  it 
was  his  misfortune,  as  it  was  that  of  Bidley,  to  aban- 
don, on  some  occasions,  theological  for  political  sub- 
jects. During  the  reign  of  Edward,  he  treated  in  the 
pulpit  the  delicate  question  of  the  succession,  and 
pronounced  it  better  that  God  should  take  away  the 
ladies  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  than  that,  by  marrying 
foreign  princes,  they  should  endanger  the  existence  of 
Sept3i3.  the  reformed  church.  The  same  zeal  probably  urged 
him  to  similar  imprudence  in  the  beginning  of  Mary’s 
reign,  when  he  was  imprisoned,  by  order  of  the  council, 
on  a charge  of  sedition.1 

Marengo.  From  the  Tower  Cranmer,  Bidley,  and  Latimer, 
after  the  insurrection  of  Wyat,  were  conducted  to 
Oxford,  and  ordered  to  confer  on  controverted  points 
with  the  deputies  of  the  convocation  and  of  the  two 
April  13.  universities.  The  disputation  was  held  in  public  on 
three  successive  days.  Cranmer  was  severely  pressed 
with  passages  from  the  fathers  ; Bidley  maintained 
1 Strype,  iii.  13 1.  Foxe,  iii.  385. 


DISPUTATION  AT  OXFORD. 


475 


his  former  reputation  ; and  Latimer  excused  himself,  chap. 
on  the  plea  of  old  age,  of  disuse  of  the  Latin  tongue,  a.d.  1553. 
and  of  weakness  of  memory.  In  conclusion,  Weston 
the  moderator  decided  in  favour  of  his  own  church ; 
and  the  hall  resounded  with  cries  of  “ vincit  veritas 
but  the  prisoners  wrote  in  their  own  vindication  to 
the  queen,  maintaining  that  they  had  been  silenced 
by  the  noise,  not  by  the  arguments,  of  their  oppo- 
nents.1 Two  days  later  they  were  again  called  before 
Weston ; and,  on  their  refusal  to  conform  to  the  April  2a 
established  church,  were  pronounced  obstinate  here- 
tics. From  that  moment  they  lived  in  daily  expecta- 
tion of  the  fate  which  awaited  them ; but  eighteen 
months  were  suffered  to  elapse  before  Brookes,  bishop  g^55^ 
of  Gloucester,  as  papal  sub-delegate,  and  Martin  and 
Story  as  royal  commissioners,  arrived  at  Oxford,  and 
summoned  the  archbishop  before  them.2  The  provi- 
sions of  the  canon  law  were  scrupulously  observed ; 

Cranmer  had  been  served,  as  a matter  of  form,  with  sept.  n. 
a citation  to  answer  before  the  pontiff  in  the  course 
of  eighty  days — a distinction  which  he  owed  to  his 
office  of  archbishop  ; his  companions,  having  appeared 
twice  before  the  bishops  of  Lincoln,  Gloucester,  and  Sept.  30. 
Bristol,  as  commissioners  of  the  legate,  and  twice 
refused  to  renounce  their  opinions,  were  degraded 

1 Cranmer,  in  his  letter  to  the  council,  says  : “ I never  knewe  nor 
u heard  of  a more  confused  disputation  in  all  my  life.  For  albeit 
“ there  was  one  appoynted  to  dispute  agaynste  me,  yet  every  man 
“ spake  hys  mynde,  and  brought  forth  what  hym  liked  without  order, 

“ and  such  hast  was  made,  that  no  answer  could  be  suffered  to  be 
“ given.” — Letters  of  Martyrs  in  Eman.  Coll.  No.  60,  let  3.  This 
is  an  exact  counterpart  to  the  complaints  of  the  Catholics  respecting 
similar  disputations  in  the  time  of  Edward. 

2 From  the  proceedings  it  appears  that  Cranmer  had  been  ar- 
raigned for  high  treason,  had  pleaded  guilty,  and  had  receivedjudg- 
ment.  lie  said,  he  had  confessed  more  than  was  true. — Foxe  apud 
Wordsworth,  iii.  533. 


476 


MARY. 


chap,  from  the  priesthood,  and  delivered  to  the  secular 
ad.  isss-  power.  It  was  in  vain  that  Soto,  an  eminent  Spanish 
0~  divine^Aaboured  to  shake  their' resolution.  Latimer 
refused  to  see  him ; Bidley  was  not  convinced  by  his 
reasoning.1  At  the  stake,  to  shorten  their  sufferings, 
bags  of  gunpowder  were  suspended  from  their  necks. 
Oct.  16,  Latimer  expired  almost  the  moment  that  the  fire  was 
kindled ; but  Bidley  was  doomed  to  suffer  the  most 
excruciating  torments.  To  hasten  his  death,  his  bro- 
ther-in-law had  almost  covered  him  with  fagots ; but 
the  pressure  checked  the  progress  of  the  flames ; and 
the  lower  extremities  of  the  victim  were  consumed, 
while  the  more  vital  parts  remained  untouched.  One 
of  the  bystanders,  hearing  him  repeatedly  exclaim,  that 
“ he  could  not  burn/’  opened  the  pile,  and  an  explosion 
of  gunpowder  almost  immediately  extinguished  his 
life.  It  is  said  that  the  spectators  were  reconciled 
to  these  horrors,  by  the  knowledge  that  every 
attempt  had  been  previously  made  to  save  the  victims 
from  the  stake  ;2  the  constancy  with  which  they  suf- 
fered consoled  the  sorrow,  and  animated  the  zeal,  of 
their  disciples. 

From  the  window  of  his  cell  the  archbishop  had 
seen  his  two  friends  led  to  execution.  At  the  sight 
his  resolution  began  to  waver ; and  he  let  fall  some 
hints  of  a willingness  to  relent,  and  of  a desire  to 
confer  with  the  legate.3  But  in  a short  time  he  reco- 
Nov.  6.  vered  the  tranquillity  of  his  mind,  and  addressed,  in 

1 Alter  ne  loqui  quidem  cum  eo  voluit ; cum  altero  est  locutus, 
sed  nihil  profecit. — Pole  to  Philip,  v.  47. 

2 De  illis  supplicium  est  sumptum,  non  illibenter,  ut  ferunt,  spec- 
tante  populo,  cum  cognitum  fuisset  nihil  esse  praetermissum  quod  ad 
eorum  salutem  pertineret. — Ibid. 

3 Is  non  ita  se  pertinacem  ostendit,  aitque  se  cupere  mecum 
loqui. — Ibid.  Magnam  spem  initio  dederat,  eique  veniam  Polus  ab 
ipsa  regina  impetraverat. — Dudith,  inter  Ep.  Poli.  i.  143. 


RECANTATIONS  OF  CRANMER. 


477 


defence  of  his  doctrine,  a long  letter  to  the  queen,  chap. 
which  at  her  request  was  answered  by  Cardinal  Pole.1  a.d.  1555 
At  Borne,  on  the  expiration  of  the  eighty  days,  the 
royal  proctors  demanded  judgment ; and  Paul,  in  a 
private  consistory,  pronounced  the  usual  sentence.2 * *  Dec 
The  intelligence  of  this  proceeding  awakened  the 
terrors  of  the  archbishop.  He  had  not  the  fortitude 
to  look  death  in  the  face.  To  save  his  life  he  feigned 
himself  a convert  to  the  established  creed,  openly 
condemned  his  past  delinquency,  and,  stifling  the 
remorse  of  his  conscience,  in  seven  successive  instru- 
ments abjured  the  faith  which  he  had  taught,  and 
approved  of  that  which  he  had  opposed.  He  first 
presented  his  submission  to  the  council ; and,  as  that 
submission  was  expressed  in  ambiguous  language,  re- 
placed it  by  another  in  more  ample  form.  When  the 
bishops  of  London  and  Ely  arrived  to  perform  the  FebSi4. 
ceremony  of  his  degradation,  he  appealed  from  the 
judgment  of  the  pope  to  a general  council ; but, 
before  the  prelates  left  Oxford,  he  sent  them  two  Feb.  16. 
other  papers ; by  the  first  of  which  he  submitted  to 
all  the  statutes  of  the  realm  respecting  the  supremacy 
and  other  subjects,  promised  to  live  in  quietness  and 
obedience  to  the  royal  authority,  and  submitted  his 
book  on  the  sacrament  to  the  judgment  of  the  church 
and  of  the  next  general  council ; in  the  second  he 
professed  to  believe  on  all  points,  and  particularly 
respecting  the  sacraments,  as  the  Catholic  church 
then  did  believe,  and  always  had  believed  from  the 

1 The  letter  and  answer  may  be  seen  in  Foxe,  iii.  563 ; Strype’s 
Cranmer,  App.  206  ; Le  Grand,  i.  289. 

2 Ex  actis  consistor,  apud  Quirini,  v.  140.  Foxe,  iii.  836.  Much 

confusion  has  arisen  from  erroneous  dates  in  Foxe,  iii.  544.  The 

citation  was  served  on  Wednesday,  the  nth  of  September.  The 

eighty  days  expired  on  the  29th  of  November. 


478 


MARY. 


chap,  beginning.1  To  Ridley  and  Latimer  life  had  been 
a.dVIi5S6.  offered,  on  condition  that  they  should  recant ; but 
— when  the  question  was  put,  whether  the  same  favour 
might  be  granted  to  Cranmer,  it  was  decided  by  the 
council  in  the  negative.  His  political  offences,  it  was 
said,  might  be  overlooked ; but  he  had  been  the  cause 
of  the  schism  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  and  the  author  of 
the  change  of  religion  in  the  reign  of  Edward ; and 
such  offences  required  that  he  should  suffer  “ for  en- 
“ sample’s  sake.”2  The  writ  was  directed  to  the  mayor 
or  bailiffs  of  Oxford,  the  day  of  execution  was  fixed ; 
still  he  cherished  a hope  of  pardon ; and  in  a fifth 
recantation,  as  full  and  explicit  as  the  most  zealous 
of  his  adversaries  could  wish,  declared  that  he  was  not 
actuated  by  fear  or  favour,  but  that  he  abjured  the 
erroneous  doctrines  which  he  had  formerly  maintained, 
for  the  discharge  of  his  own  conscience,  and  the  in- 
struction of  others.3  This  paper  was  accompanied 
with  a letter  to  Cardinal  Pole,  in  which  he  begged  a 
respite  during  a few  days,  that  he  might  have  leisure 
to  give  to  the  world  a more  convincing  proof  of  his 
repentance,  and  might  do  away,  before  his  death,  the 
March  18.  scandal  given  by  his  past  conduct.4  This  prayer  was 

1 The  submissions  are  in  Strype,  iii.  233,  234;  the  appeal  in 
Foxe,  iii.  556. 

2 Strype’s  Cranmer,  385. 

3 This  recantation  is  in  Foxe,  iii.  559. 

4 II  envoya  prier  M.  le  cardinal  Polus  de  differer  pour  quelques 
jours  son  execution,  esperant  que  Dieu  l’inspireroit  cependant : de 
quoi  ceste  royne  et  susdit  cardinal  furent  fort  ayses,  estimans  que 
par  l’exemple  de  sa  repentance  publique  la  religion  en  sera  plus  for- 
tifi^e  en  ce  royaulme  : ayant  depuis  faict  une  confession . publicque 
et  amende  honorable  et  volontaire. — Noailles,  v.  319.  In  the  council- 
book  we  meet  with  two  entries,  one  of  March  13,  the  other  of 
March  16,  by  which  the  printers  Rydall  and  Copeland  are  ordered 
to  give  up  the  printed  copies  of  Cranmer’s  recantation  to  Cawoode, 
the  queen’s  printer,  that  they  may  be  burnt.  These  orders,  from 
the  dates,  appear  to  refer  to  the  fifth  recantation.  Perhaps  Rydall 
and  Copeland  had  invaded  the  privilege  of  the  queen’s  printer. 


PRETENDED  REPENTANCE  OF  CRANMER.  479 

cheerfully  granted  by  the  queen ; and  Cranmer  in  a chap. 
sixth  confession  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  a a.d  1*556. 
greater  persecutor  of  the  church  than  Paul,  and  wished 
that  like  Paul  he  might  be  able  to  make  amends.  He 
could  not  rebuild  what  he  had  destroyed ; but,  as  the 
penitent  thief  on  the  cross,  by  the  testimony  of  his 
lips,  obtained  mercy,  so  he  (Cranmer)  trusted  that,  by 
this  offering  of  his  lips,  he  should  move  the  clemency 
of  the  Almighty.  He  was  unworthy  of  favour,  and 
worthy  not  only  of  temporal  but  of  eternal  punish- 
ment. He  had  offended  against  King  Henry  and 
Queen  Catherine : he  was  the  cause  and  author  of 
the  divorce,  and,  in  consequence,  also  of  the  evils 
which  resulted  from  it.  He  had  blasphemed  against 
the  sacrament,  had  sinned  against  Heaven,  and  had 
deprived  men  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the 
eucharist.  In  conclusion,  he  conjured  the  pope  to 
forgive  his  offences  against  the  Apostolic  See,  the  king 
and  queen  to  pardon  his  transgressions  against  them, 
the  whole  realm,  the  universal  church,  to  take  pity  of 
his  wretched  soul,  and  God  to  look  on  him  with  mercy 
at  the  hour  of  his  death.1  He  had  undoubtedly  nat- 
tered himself  that  this  humble  tone,  these  expres- 
sions of  remorse,  these  cries  for  mercy,  would  move 
the  heart  of  the  queen.  She,  indeed,  little  suspecting 
the  dissimulation  which  had  dictated  them,  rejoiced 
at  the  conversion  of  the  sinner ; but  she  had  also  per- 
suaded herself,  or  been  persuaded  by  others,  that  public 
justice  would  not  allow  her  to  save  him  from  the 
punishment  to  which  he  had  been  condemned. 

At  length  the  fatal  morning  arrived ; at  an  early  March  21. 
hour  Garcina,  a Spanish  friar,  who  had  frequently 
visited  the  prisoner  since  his  condemnation,  came,  not 

1 See  it  in  Strype,  iii.  235. 


480 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


to  announce  a pardon,  but  to  comfort  and  prepare  him 
for  the  last  trial.  Entertaining  no  suspicion  of  his 
sincerity,  Garcina  submitted  to  his  consideration  a 
paper,  which  he  advised  him  to  read  at  the  stake,  as  a 
public  testimony  of  his  repentance.  It  consisted  of 
live  parts ; a request  that  the  spectators  would  pray 
with  him ; a form  of  prayer  for  himself ; an  exhorta- 
tion to  others  to  lead  a virtuous  life ; a direction  to 
declare  the  queen’s  right  to  the  crown ; and  a confes- 
sion of  faith,  with  a retractation  of  the  doctrine  in  his 
book  on  the  eucharist.  Cranmer,  having  dissembled 
so  long,  did  not  hesitate  to  carry  on  the  deception. 
He  transcribed  and  signed  the  paper ; and,  giving  one 
copy  to  the  Spaniard,  retained  the  other  for  his  own 
use.  But  when  the  friar  was  gone,  he  appears  to  have 
made  a second  copy,  in  which,  entirely  omitting  the 
fourth  article,  the  declaration  of  the  queen’s  right,  he 
substituted,  in  lieu  of  the  confession  contained  in  the 
fifth,  a disavowal  of  the  six  retractations  which  he  had 
already  made.1  Of  his  motives  we  can  judge  only 
from  his  conduct.  Probably  he  now  considered  him- 

1 Compare  Foxe,  iii.  559,  with  Strype,  iii.  236.  To  extenuate 
the  fall  of  Cranmer,  his  friends  have  said  that  either  these  recanta- 
tions are  forgeries,  or  that  he  was  seduced  to  make  them  by  the 
artful  promises  of  persons  sent  from  the  court  for  that  purpose. 
But  this  pretence  is  refuted  by  his  last  speech,  and  gives  the  lie  to  his 
own  solemn  declaration ; for,  instead  of  making  any  such  apology 
for  himself,  he  owns  that  his  confessions  proceeded  from  a wish  to 
save  his  life.  “ I renounce  and  refuse  them,  as  things  written  with 
“ my  hand,  contrary  to  the  truth  which  I thought  in  my  heart ; and 
“ written  for  fear  of  death,  and  to  save  my  life,  if  it  might  he ; and  that 
lt  is,  all  such  bills  and  papers  as  I have  written  or  signed  with  my  hand 
11  since  my  degradation,  wherein  I have  written  many  things  untrue.” 
. . . . “ Always  hitherto  I have  been  a hater  of  falsehood,  and  a 
“ lover  of  simplicity,  and  never  before  this  time  have  I dissembled.” 
These  words  certainly  amount  to  an  acknowledgment  that  he  had 
written  such  recantations,  though  no  promise  of  life  had  been 
made  to  him  ; indeed,  it  is  evident  from  Noailles,  v.  319,  that  he  did 
not  openly  ask  for  mercy,  though  he  hoped  to  obtain  it. 


HIS  EXECUTION. 


481 


self  doubly  armed.  If  a pardon  were  announced,  he 
might  take  the  benefit  of  it,  and  read  the  original 
paper ; if  not,  by  reading  the  copy  he  would  disappoint 
the  expectations  of  his  adversaries,  and  repair  the 
scandal  which  he  had  given  to  his  brethren.  At  the 
appointed  hour  the  procession  set  forward,  and,  on 
account  of  the  rain,  halted  at  the  church  of  St.  Mary, 
where  the  sermon  was  preached  by  Dr.  Cole.  Cranmer 
stood  on  a platform  opposite  the  pulpit,  appearing,  as 
a spectator  writes,  “ the  very  image  of  sorrow.”  His 
face  was  bathed  in  tears  ; his  eyes  were  sometimes 
raised  to  heaven,  sometimes  fixed  through  shame  on 
the  earth.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  sermon,  he  began 
to  read  his  paper,  and  was  heard  with  profound  silence 
till  he  came  to  the  fifth  article.  But  when  he  recalled 
all  his  former  recantations,  rejected  the  papal  au- 
thority, and  confirmed  the  doctrine  contained  in  his 
book,  he  was  interrupted  by  the  murmurs  and  agita- 
tion of  the  audience.  The  lord  Williams  called  to 
him  to  “ remember  himself,  and  play  the  Christian.” 
“ I do,”  replied  Cranmer  ; “ it  is  now  too  late  to  dis- 
“ semble.  I must  now  speak  the  truth.”  As  soon  as 
order  could  be  restored,  he  was  conducted  to  the  stake, 
declaring  that  he  had  never  changed  his  belief ; that 
his  recantations  had  been  wrung  from  him  by  the  hope 
of  life ; and  that,  “ as  his  hand  had  offended  by  writing 
“ contrary  to  his  heart,  it  should  be  the  first  to  receive 
“ its  punishment.”  When  the  fire  was  kindled,  to  the 
surprise  of  the  spectators,  he  thrust  his  hand  into  the 
flame,  exclaiming,  “ This  hath  offended.”  His  suffer- 
ings were  short ; the  flames  rapidly  ascended  above 
his  head,  and  he  expired  in  a few  moments.  The 
Catholics  consoled  their  disappointment  by  invectives 
against  his  insincerity  and  falsehood ; the  Protestants 
VOL.  v.  2 I 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


482 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


defended  his  memory  by  maintaining  that  liis  con- 
stancy at  the  stake  had  atoned  for  his  apostasy  in  the 
prison.1 

Historians  are  divided  with  respect  to  the  part 
which  Pole  acted  during  these  horrors.  Most  ape 
willing  to  acquit  him  entirely ; a few,  judging  from 
the  influence  which  he  was  supposed  to  possess,  have 
allotted  to  him  a considerable  share  of  the  blame.  In 
a confidential  letter  to  the  cardinal  of  Augsburg  he 
has  unfolded  to  us  his  own  sentiments  without  reserve. 
He  will  not,  he  says,  deny  that  there  may  be  men,  so 
addicted  to  the  most  pernicious  errors  themselves,  and 
so  apt  to  seduce  others,  that  they  may  justly  be  put  to 
death,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  amputate  a limb  to 
preserve  the  whole  body.  But  this  is  an  extreme 
case  ; and,  even  when  it  happens,  every  gentler  remedy 
should  be  applied  before  such  punishment  is  inflicted. 
In  general,  lenity  is  to  be  preferred  to  severity ; and 
the  bishops  should  remember  that  they  are  fathers  as 
well  as  judges,  and  ought  to  show  the  tenderness  of 
parents,  even  when  they  are  compelled  to  punish. 
This  has  always  been  his  opinion ; it  was  that  of  his 
colleagues  who  presided  with  him  at  the  council  of 
Trent,  and  also  of  the  prelates  who  composed  that 


1 See  a most  interesting  narrative  by  an  eye-witness,  in  Strype’s 
Cranmer,  384.  The  seven  recantations  of  Cranmer  were  published 
by  Cawoode,  with  Bonner’s  approbation,  under  the  title  of  “ All  the 
“ subjnyssions  and  recantations  of  Thomas  Cranmer,  late  arche- 
“ byshop  of  Canterburye,  truly  set  forth  in  Latyn  and  English, 
‘‘agreeable  to  the  originalles,  wrytten  and  subscribed  with  his  own 
“hand.”  It  has  been  pretended  that  the  seventh  of  these  is  a 
forgery,  because  it  is  contrary  to  his  declaration  at  his  death  ; but 
the  same  reason  would  prove  that  they  were  all  forgeries,  for  he  then 
revoked  them  all.  But  that  he  actually  wrote  and  subscribed  a 
seventh,  is  evident  from  Foxe  (Acts  and  Mon.  559),  and,  as  he 
gave  a copy  so  subscribed  to  Garcina,  why  should  we  doubt  that  it 
was  that  which  was  published  as  such  ? 


CONDUCT  OF  POLE. 


483 


assembly.1  His  conduct  in  England  was  conformable  chap. 
to  these  professions.  On  the  deprivation  of  Cranmer,  a.d.  1555. 
he  was  appointed  archbishop ; and  his  consecration  Dec.  n. 
took  place  on  the  day  after  the  death  of  his  prede- 
cessor.2  From  that  moment  the  persecution  ceased  in  March  22. 
the  diocese  of  Canterbury.  Pole  found  sufficient 
exercise  for  his  zeal  in  reforming  the  clergy,  repairing 
the  churches,  and  re-establishing  the  ancient  discipline. 

His  severity  was  exercised  against  the  dead  rather 
than  the  living ; and  his  delegates,  when  they  visited 
the  universities  in  his  name,  ordered  the  bones  of 
Bucer  and  Fagius,  two  foreign  divines,  who  had  taught 
the  new  doctrines  at  Cambridge,  to  be  taken  up  and 
burnt.  But  his  moderation  displeased  the  more  zeal- 

j - -g 

ous ; they  called  in  question  his  orthodoxy ; and,  in  March  22. 
the  last  year  of  his  life  (perhaps  to  refute  the  calumny), 
he  issued  a commission  for  the  prosecution  of  heretics  July  7. 
within  his  diocese.  Five  persons  were  condemned  ; 
four  months  afterwards  they  suffered,  but  at  a time  Nov.  10. 
when  the  cardinal  lay  on  his  death-bed,  and  was  pro- 
bably ignorant  of  their  fate.3 

It  had  at  first  been  hoped  that  a few  of  these  bar- 
barous exhibitions  would  silence  the  voices  of  the 
preachers,  and  check  the  diffusion  of  their  doctrines. 

In  general  they  produced  conformity  to  the  established 
worship  ; but  they  also  encouraged  hypocrisy  and  per- 

1 Poli  Epist.  iv.  156.  See  also  in  Foxe,  iii.  659,  Bonner’s  letter 
to  him  of  December  26,  1556,  which  shows  that  the  cardinal  disap- 
proved of  some  of  Bonner’s  proceedings  against  the  reformers. 

2 It  has  been  said  that  Pole  hastened  the  death  of  Cranmer,  that 
he  might  get  possession  of  the  archbishopric.  But  the  life  of  Cran- 
mer,  after  his  deprivation,  could  be  no  obstacle.  The  fact  is,  that 
Pole  procured  several  respites  for  Cranmer,  and  thus  prolonged  his 
life. — Noailles,  v.  319.  Dudith,  inter  Ep.  Poli,  i.  43. 

3 Wilk.  Con.  iv.  173,  174.  Foxe,  iii.  750.  It  is  a mistake  to 
suppose  that  inquisitors  of  heretical  pravity  were  appointed  by  Pole 
in  the  convocation  of  1558. — See  Wilkins,  iv.  156. 

2 I 2 


484 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


jury.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  among  the  higher 
classes  there  were  some  who  retained  an  attachment 
to  the  doctrines  which  they  professed  under  Edward, 
and  to  which  they  afterwards  returned  under  Eliza- 
beth. Yet  it  will  be  useless  to  seek  among  the  names 
of  the  sufferers  for  a single  individual  of  rank,  opulence, 
or  importance.1  All  of  this  description  embraced,  or 
pretended  to  embrace,  the  ancient  creed  : the  victims 
of  persecution,  who  dared  to  avow  their  real  senti- 
ments, were  found  only  in  the  lower  walks  of  life. 
Of  the  reformed  clergy  a few  suffered;  some,  who 
were  already  in  prison,  and  some  whose  zeal  prompted 
them  to  brave  the  authority  of  the  law.  Others,  who 
aspired  not  to  the  crown  of  martyrdom,  preferred  to 
seek  an  asylum  in  foreign  climes.  The  Lutheran 
Protestants  refused  to  receive  them,  because  they  were 
heretics,  rejecting  the  corporeal  presence  in  the  sacra- 
ment ;2  but  they  met  with  a cordial  welcome  from  the 
disciples  of  Calvin  and  Zwinglius,  and  obtained  per- 
mission to  open  churches  in  Strasburg,  Frankfort, 
Basle,  Geneva,  Arau,  and  Zurich.  Soon,  however, 
the  demon  of  discord  interrupted  the  harmony  of  the 
exiles.  Each  followed  his  own  judgment ; some 
retained  with  pertinacity  the  book  of  Common  Prayer 

1 Perhaps  I should  except  Sir  John  Cheke,  preceptor  to  the  late 
king,  and  to  many  of  the  nobility.  Yet  I suspect  that  his  incarcera- 
tion was  for  some  other  cause  than  religion,  as  he  was  apprehended 
and  brought  from  the  Low  Countries  in  company  with  Sir  Peter 
Carew.  However,  Feckenham,  dean  of  St.  Paul’s,  prevailed  on  him 
to  conform ; and,  to  show  his  sincerity,  he  persuaded,  after  several 
discussions,  twenty-eight  other  prisoners  to  follow  his  example,  and 
sat  on  the  bench  at  the  trial  of  some  others.  He  died  the  next  year, 
if  we  may  believe  the  reformed  writers,  of  remorse  for  his  apostasy. 
— See  Strype,  iii.  315,  Rec.  186 — 189;  and  a letter  from  Priuli 
inter  Ep.  Poli,  v.  346. 

2 Yociferantem  martyres  Anglicos  esse  martyres  diaboli. — Me- 
lancthon  apud  Iieylin,  250.  Pet.  Martyr,  ibid. 


NUMBER  OF  THE  SUFFERERS. 


485 


and  the  articles  of  religion  published  under  Edward ; 
others,  deriving  new  lights  from  the  society  of  foreign 
religionists,  demanded  a form  of  service  less  defiled 
with  superstition ; and  with  this  view  adopted  in 
their  full  extent  the  rigid  principles  of  the  Genevan 
theology.  Dissension,  reproaches,  and  schisms  divided 
the  petty  churches  abroad,  and  from  them  extended  to 
the  reformed  ministers  at  home.  The  very  prisons 
became  theatres  of  controversy ; force  was  occasionally 
required  to  restrain  the  passions  of  the  contending 
parties;  and  the  men  who  lived  in  the  daily  expecta- 
tion of  being  summoned  to  the  stake  for  their  denial 
of  the  ancient  creed,  found  leisure  to  condemn  and 
I'evile  each  other  for  difference  of  opinion  respecting 
the  use  of  habits  and  ceremonies,  and  the  abstruse 
mysteries  of  grace  and  predestination.1 

The  persecution  continued  till  the  death  of  Mary. 
Sometimes  milder  counsels  seemed  to  prevail ; and  on 
one  occasion  all  the  prisoners  were  discharged  on  the 
easy  condition  of  taking  an  oath  to  be  true  to  God  and 
the  queen.2  But  these  intervals  were  short,  and,  after 
some  suspense,  the  spirit  of  intolerance  was  sure  to 
resume  the  ascendancy.  Then  new  commissions  were 
issued  by  the  crown.3  The  magistrates  were  careful  to 
fulfil  their  instructions  : and  the  council  urged  the 
bishops  “to  reclaim  the  prisoners,  or  to  deal  with  them 
“according  to  law.”  The  reformed  writers  have  de- 
scribed, in  glowing  colours,  the  sufferings,  and  sought 
to  multiply  the  number,  of  the  victims;  while  the 
Catholics  have  maintained  that  the  reader  should 
distrust  the  exaggerations  of  men  heated  with  en- 
thusiasm and  exasperated  by  oppression ; and  that 

1 Phoenix,  ii.  44.  2 Strype,  iii.  307.  Foxe,  iii.  660. 

3 See  similar  commissions  under  Edward,  Rymer,  xv.  181 — 183, 
250 — 252.  Many  were  also  issued  under  Elizabeth. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


486 


MARY. 


chap,  from  the  catalogue  of  the  martyrs  should  be  expunged 
a.d.  1558..  the  names  of  all  who  were  condemned  as  felons  or 
traitors,  or  who  died  peaceably  in  their  beds,  or  who 
survived  the  publication  of  their  martyrdom,  or  who 
would  for  their  heterodoxy  have  been  sent  to  the  stake 
by  the  reformed  prelates  themselves,  had  they  been  in 
possession  of  the  power.1  Yet  these  deductions  will 
take  but  little  from  the  infamy  of  the  measure.  After 
every  allowance,  it  will  be  found  that,  in  the  space  of 
four  years,  almost  two  hundred  persons  perished  in  the 
flames  for  religious  opinion ; a number,  at  the  con- 
templation of  which  the  mind  is  struck  with  horror, 
and  learns  to  bless  the  legislation  of  a more  tolerant 
age,  in  which  dissent  from  established  forms,  though 
in  some  countries  still  punished  with  civil  disabilities, 
is  nowhere  liable  to  the  penalties  of  death. 

If  any  thing  could  be  urged  in  extenuation  of  these 
cruelties,  it  must  have  been  the  provocation  given  by 
the  reformers.  The  succession  of  a Catholic  sovereign 
had  deprived  them  of  office  and  power ; had  sup- 
pressed the  English  service,  the  idol  of  their  affections; 
and  had  re-established  the  ancient  worship,  which  they 
deemed  antichristian  and  idolatrous.  Disappointment 
embittered  their  zeal ; and  enthusiasm  sanctified  their 
intemperance.  They  heaped  on  the  queen,  her  bishops, 
and  her  religion,  every  indecent  and  irritating  epithet 
which  language  could  supply.  Her  clergy  could  not 
exercise  their  functions  without  danger  to  their  lives  ; 
a dagger  was  thrown  at  one  priest  in  the  pulpit  ; a 
gun  was  discharged  at  another;  and  several  wounds 
were  inflicted  on  a third,  while  he  administered  the 
communion  in  his  church.  The  chief  supporters  of 
the  treason  of  Northumberland,  the  most  active  among 
1 See  the  second  part  of  note  (G). 

- 'jM 

/ 


MOTIVES  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


487 


the  adherents  of  Wyat,  professed  the  reformed  creed  ; 
an  impostor  was  suborned  to  personate  Edward  YI.  ;l 
some  congregations  prayed  for  the  death  of  the  queen  ; 
tracts  filled  with  libellous  and  treasonable  matter  were 
transmitted  from  the  exiles  in  Germany  ;2  and  succes- 
sive insurrections  were  planned  by  the  fugitives  in 
France.  It  is  not  improbable  that  such  excesses  would 
have  considerable  influence  with  statesmen,  who  might 
deem  it  expedient  to  suppress  sedition  by  prosecution 
for  heresy;  but  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  queen 
herself  was  not  actuated  so  much  by  motives  of  policy 
as  of  conscience  ; that  she  had  imbibed  the  same  in- 
tolerant opinion,  which  Cranmer  and  Eidley  laboured 
to  instil  into  the  young  mind  of  Edward : “ that,  as 
“ Moses  ordered  blasphemers  to  be  put  to  death,  so  it 
“ was  the  duty  of  a Christian  prince,  and  more  so  of 
“one  who  bore  the  title  of  Defender  of  the  Faith,  to 
“ eradicate  the  cockle  from  the  field  of  God’s  church,  to 
“ cut  out  the  gangrene,  that  it  might  not  spread  to  the 
“ sounder  parts.”3  In  this  principle  both  parties  seem 

1 His  name  was  Fetherstone.  For  the  first  offence  he  was  publicly 
whipped;  for  the  repetition  of  it  was  executed  as fa  traitor. — Stowe, 
626,  628.  Noailles  says  falsely,  that  he  was  torn  to  pieces  by  four 
horses,  as  traitors  were  sometimes  in  France  (v.  318). 

2 If  scurrility  and  calumny  form  the  merit  of  a libel,  it  will  be 
difficult  to  find  any  thing  to  rival  these  publications.  The  reader 
will  meet  with  some  samples  in  Strype,  iii.  251,  252,  328,  388,  410, 
49°. 

3 Thus  Edward  was  made  to  say,  Etsi  regibus  quidem  omnibus 

nobis  tamen  qui  fidei  defensor  peculiari  quodam  titulo 

vocitamur,  maximae  prae  caeteris  curae  esse,  debet,  to  eradicate  the 
cockle,  &c. — Rym.  xv.  182,  250.  To  the  same  purpose  Elizabeth, 
in  a commission  for  the  burning  of  heretics,  to  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon, 
says,  “ they  have  been  justly  declared  heretics,  and  therefore,  as 
“ corrupt  members  to  be  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the  flock  of  Christ, 
“ lest  they  should  corrupt  others  professing  the  true  Christian  faith, 
il  ...  . we,  therefore,  according  to  regal  function  and  office, 
u minding  the  execution  of  justice  in  this  behalf,  require  you  to 
*l  award  and  make  out  our  writ  of  execution,”  &c Kymer, 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


488 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


1555- 


May  22. 


to  have  agreed ; the  only  difference  between  them 
regarded  its  application,  as  often  as  it  affected  them- 
selves. 

But  it  is  now  time  to  turn  from  these  cruelties  to 
the  affairs  of  state.  The  French  ambassador,  when 
he  congratulated  Philip  on  the  marriage,  had  been 
ordered  to  express  an  ardent  wish  for  the  continua- 
tion of  the  amity  between  England  and  France ; and 
the  new  king,  aware  of  the  declaration  of  Henry,  that 
he  had  no  league  but  that  of  friendship  with  Mary, 
coldly  replied,  that  he  should  never  think  of  drawing 
the  nation  into  a war,  as  long  as  it  was  for  its  interest 
to  preserve  peace.  This  ambiguous  answer  alarmed 
the  French  cabinet : it  was  expected  that  England 
would  in  a short  time  make  common  cause  with  Spain 
and  the  Netherlands  against  France ; and  Noailles 
was  informed  that  his  sovereign  had  no  objection  to  a 
negotiation  for  a general  peace,  provided  the  first 
motion  did  not  appear  to  originate  from  him.  Mary 
offered  her  mediation  ; Pole  and  Grardiner  solicited 
the  concurrence  of  Charles  and  Henry ; and  the  two 
monarclis,  after  much  hesitation,  gave  their  consent. 
But  pride,  or  policy,  induced  them  to  affect  an  indif- 
ference which  they  did  not  feel.  Many  weeks  passed 
in  useless  attempts  by  each  to  draw  from  the  other 
some  intimation  of  the  terms  to  which  he  would  con- 
sent ; and  as  many  more  were  lost  in  deciding  on  the 
persons  of  the  negotiators,  because  etiquette  required 
that  all  employed  by  the  one  should  he  of  equal  rank 
with  those  employed  by  his  opponent.  At  length  the 
congress  opened  at  Marque,  within  the  English  pale ; 

xy.  740.  And  again,  Nos  igitur  ut  zelator,  justiti®  et  fidei  Catholic® 
defensor,  volentesque  ....  hujusmodi  haereses  et  errores  ubique 
(quantum  in  nobis  est)  eradicare  et  extirpare,  ac  hasreticos  sic  con- 
victos  animadversione  condigna  puniri,  &c. — Id.  xv.  741. 


TRUCE  WITH  FRANCE. 


489 


where  the  cardinal,  Gardiner,  Arundel,  and  Paget,  chap. 
appeared  as  the  representatives  of  Mary,  the  medi-  a.d.  1555. 
ating  sovereign.  It  was  soon  found  that  a treaty  was 
impracticable  : Charles  would  not  abandon  the  inter- 
ests of  his  ally  Philibert  duke  of  Savoy,  and  Henry 
would  not  restore  the  dominions  of  that  prince,  unless 
he  were  to  receive  Milan  from  the  emperor.  Yet  the 
necessities  of  the  belligerent  powers  imperiously  re- 
quired a cessation  of  war  ; and  the  English  ministers,  June  8. 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  congress,  returned  with  the 
persuasion,  that,  notwithstanding  the  insuperable  ob- 
jections to  a peace,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  con-  iss6 
elude  a truce  for  several  years ; which  was  accordingly  Feb* 6' 
accomplished  a few  months  afterwards.1 

Prom  the  moment  of  his  arrival  in  England,  Philip 
had  sought  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  natives.  He 
had  conformed  to  the  national  customs,  and  appeared 
to  be  delighted  with  the  national  amusements.  He 
endeavoured  to  attach  the  leading  men  to  his  interest, 
by  the  distribution  among  them  of  pensions  from  his 
own  purse,  under  the  decent  pretence  of  rewarding  the 
services  rendered  to  his  wife  during  the  insurrection  ; 
and,  throwing  aside  the  hauteur  and  reserve  of  the 
Spanish  character,  he  became  courteous  and  affable, 
granting  access  to  every  suitor,  even  to  those  in  the 
humblest  condition  of  life,  and  dismissing  all  with 
answers,  expressive  of  his  sympathy,  if  not  promissory 
of  his  support.  In  the  government  of  the  realm  he 
appeared  not  to  take  any  active  part ; and,  when 
favours  were  conferred,  was  careful  to  attribute  them  to 
the  bounty  of  the  queen,  claiming  for  himself  no  other 
merit  than  that  of  a well-wisher  and  intercessor.  But 
he  laboured  in  vain.  The  antipathy  of  the  English 


1 See  the  despatches  of  Noailles  through  the  whole  of  vol.  iv. 


490 


MARY. 


chap,  was  not  to  be  subdued ; personally,  indeed,  he  was 
a.d.  155s.  always  treated  with  respect,  but  his  attendants  met  with 
daily  insults  and  injuries  ; and  when,  in  answer  to  their 
complaints,  he  referred  them  to  the  courts  of  law  for 
redress,  they  replied  that  justice  was  not  to  be  ob- 
tained against  the  natives,  through  the  dilatory  form 
of  the  proceedings,  and  the  undisguised  partiality  of 
the  judges.1 

Under  these  circumstances  the  king  grew  weary  of 
his  stay  in  England,  and  his  secret  wishes  were 
aided  by  letters  from  his  father,  who,  exhausted  with 
disease  and  the  cares  of  government,  earnestly  en- 
treated him  to  return  ; but  the  queen,  believing  her- 
self in  a state  to  give  him  an  heir  to  his  dominions, 
extorted  from  him  a promise  not  to  leave  her  till  after 
her  expected  delivery.  The  delusion  was  not  con- 
fined to  herself  and  Philip ; even  the  females  of  her 
family  and  her  medical  attendants  entertained  the 
same  opinion.  Preparations  were  made  ; public  prayers 
were  ordered  for  her  safety,  and  that  of  her  child ; 
her  physicians  were  kept  in  daily  attendance  ; ambas- 
sadors were  named  to  announce  the  important  intelli- 
May  28.  gence  to  foreign  courts  ; and  even  letters  were  written 
beforehand,  with  blank  spaces  which  might  afterwards 
be  filled  up  with  the  sex  of  the  child  and  the  date  of 
the  birth.2  Week  after  week  passed  away ; still 
Mary’s  expectations  were  disappointed ; and  it  was 
generally  believed  that  she  was  in  the  same  situation 
with  the  lady  Ambrose  Dudley,  who  very  recently  had 
mistaken  for  pregnancy  a state  of  disease.  But  the 

1 MS.  Report  of  Soriano  to  the  Venetian  Senate. 

2 Those  addressed  to  the  emperor,  the  kings  of  France,  Hungary, 
Bohemia,  to  several  queens,  and  to  the  Doge  of  Venice,  are  still  in 
the  State  Paper  Office. — See  Transcripts  for  the  new  Rymer,  353, 
354- 


THE  QUEEN’S  SUPPOSED  PREGNANCY.  491 

midwife,  contrary  to  her  own  conviction,  thought  chap. 
proper  to  encourage  the  hopes  of  the  king  and  queen ; a.d.  1555. 
and,  on  a supposition  of  miscalculation  of  time,  two 
more  months  were  suffered  to  elapse  before  the  delu- 
sion was  removed.1  Sometimes  it  was  rumoured  that 
Mary  had  died  in  childbed ; sometimes  that  she  had 
been  delivered  of  a son  ; her  enemies  indulged  in  sar- 
casms, epigrams,  and  lampoons  ; and  the  public  mind 
was  kept  in  a constant  state  of  suspense  and  expecta- 
tion. At  last,  the  royal  pair,  relinquishing  all  hope,  August  4. 
proceeded  in  state  from  Hampton  Court  through 
London  to  Greenwich  ; whence  Philip,  after  a short  August  26. 
stay,  departed  for  Flanders.  He  left  the  queen  with 
every  demonstration  of  attachment,  and  recommended  SePt-  4. 
her  in  strong  terms  to  the  care  of  Cardinal  Pole.2 

Mary  consoled  her  grief  for  the  absence  of  her 
husband  by  devoting  the  more  early  part  of  each  day 
to  practices  of  charity  and  devotion,  and  the  afternoon 
to  affairs  of  state,  to  which  she  gave  such  attention  as 
in  a short  time  injured  her  health.  The  king,  though 
occupied  by  the  war  with  France,  continued  to  exer- 
cise considerable  influence  in  the  government  of  the 
kingdom.  He  maintained  a continual  correspondence 
with  the  ministers ; and  no  appointment  was  made? 


1 The  queen  yielded  again  to  this  delusion  in  the  beginning  of 
1558,  and  Philip  wrote  to  her  on  Jan.  21,  that  the  announcement  of 
her  pregnancy  was  “ the  best  news  which  he  had  received  in  allevia- 
“ tion  of  his  grief  for  the  loss  of  Calais.” — See  Apuntamientos  para 
la  Historia  del  Roy  Don  Felipe  II.,  por  Don  Tomas  Gonzalez,  p.  4. 
The  documents  quoted  in  that  work  are  at  Simancas. 

2 Noailles,  iv.  331,  334;  v.  12,  50,  77,  83,  99,  126.  Michele’s 
Memoir  to  the  Senate,  MSS.  Barberini,  1208.  The  cabinet,  after 
his  departure,  consisted  of  the  cardinal,  whenever  he  could  and  would 
attend  (for  he  objected  to  meddle  in  temporal  matters),  the  chan- 
cellor and  treasurer,  the  earls  of  Arundel  and  Pembroke,  the  bishop 
of  Ely  and  Lord  Paget,  Rochester,  and  Petre,  the  secretary. — See 
the  instrument  of  appointment  in  Burnet,  iii.  Rec.  256. 


492 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

YI. 

A.D.  1555. 


no  measure  was  carried  into  execution,  without  his 
previous  knowledge  and  consent.1  Before  his  depar- 
ture he  had  reluctantly  acquiesced  in  the  wish  of  the 
queen,  who,  considering  the  impoverished  state  of  the 
church,  judged  it  her  duty  to  restore  to  it  such  eccle- 
siastical property  as  during  the  late  reigns  had  been 
vested  in  the  crown.  She  had  renounced  the  supre- 
macy, could  she  retain  the  wealth  which  resulted  from 
the  assumption  of  that  authority  ? She  saw  the  clergy 
suffering  under  the  pressure  of  want,  was  she  not 
bound  to  furnish  relief  out  of  that  portion  of  their 
property  which  still  remained  in  her  hands  ? Her 
ministers  objected  the  amount  of  her  debts,  the  poverty 
of  the  exchequer,  and  the  necessity  of  supporting  the 
dignity  of  the  crown  : but  she  replied,  that  “ she  set 
“ more  by  the  salvation  of  her  soul  than  by  ten  such 
“ crowns. ” On  the  opening  of  the  parliament,  to 
relieve  the  apprehensions  of  the  other  possessors  of 
church  property,  a papal  bull  was  read,  confirming  the 
grant  already  made  by  the  legate,  and,  for  greater 
security,  excepting  it  from  the  operation  of  another 
bull  recently  issued  ; after  which  Gardiner  explained 
to  the  two  houses  the  wants  of  the  clergy  and  of  the 
crown,  and  the  solicitude  of  the  queen  to  make  ade- 
quate provision  for  both.  He  spoke  that  day  and  the 
next,  with  an  ability  and  eloquence  that  excited  uni- 
versal applause.2  But  the  exertion  was  too  great  for 
his  debilitated  frame.  His  health  had  long  been  on 

1 Poii  Ep.  v.  41,  44. 

2 His  duobus  diebus  ita  mihi  visus  est  non  modo  seipsnm  iis 
rebus  superasse,  quibus  caeteros  superare  solet,  ingenio,  eloquentia, 
prudentia,  pietate,  sed  etiam  ipsas  sni  corporis  vires. — Pole  to  Philip, 
v.  46.  From  this  and  similar  passages  in  the  letters  of  Pole,  I can- 
not believe  that  that  jealousy  existed  between  him  and  Gardiner, 
which  it  has  pleased  some  historians  to  suppose. 


DEATH  OF  GARDINER. 


493 


tlie  decline ; at  his  return  from  the  house  on  the  chap. 

YI. 

second  day,  he  repaired  to  his  chamber,  and,  having  a.d.  1555. 
lingered  three  weeks,  expired.  His  death  was  a sub-  No~I2> 
ject  of  deep  regret  to  Mary,  who  lost  in  him  a most 
able,  faithful,  and  zealous  servant ; but  it  was  hailed 
with  joy  by  the  French  ambassador,  the  factious, 
and  the  reformers,  who  considered  him  as  the  chief 
support  of  her  government.1  During  his  illness  he 
edified  all  around  him  by  his  piety  and  resignation, 
often  observing,  “ I have  sinned  with  Peter,  but  have 
“ not  yet  learned  to  weep  bitterly  with  Peter.”2  By 
his  will  he  bequeathed  all  his  property  to  his  royal 
mistress,  with  a request  that  she  would  pay  his  debts, 
and  provide  for  his  servants.  It  proved  but  an  incon- 
siderable sum,  though  his  enemies  had  accused  him 
of  having  amassed  between  thirty  and  forty  thousand 
pounds.3 

The  indisposition  of  the  chancellor  did  not  prevent 
the  ministers  from  introducing  a bill  for  a subsidy  into 
the  lower  house.  It  was  the  first  aid  that  Mary  had 
asked  of  her  subjects  ; but  Noailles  immediately  began 
his  intrigues,  and  procured  four  of  the  best  speakers 
among  the  Commons  to  oppose  it  in  every  stage.  It 
had  been  proposed  to  grant  two  fifteenths,  with  a sub- 
sidy of  four  shillings  in  the  pound ; but,  whether  it 

1 See  note  (G). 

2 “He  desired  that  the  passion  of  our  Saviour  might  be  redde  unto 
l(  him,  and  when  they  came  to  the  denial  of  St.  Peter,  he  bid  them 
“ stay  there,  for  (saythe  he)  negavi  cum  Petro,  exivi  cum  Petro,  sed 
11  nondum  flevi  amare  cum  Petro.” — Wardword,  48.  Speaking  of 
Gardiner’s  sickness,  Pole  writes  thus  : Dicam  quasi  simul  cum  eo 
religio  et  justitia  laborarent,  sic  ab  eo  tempore,  quo  is  aegrotare 
coepit,  utramque  in  hoc  regno  esse  infirmatam,  rursusque  impietatem 
et  injustitiam  vires  colligere  ccepisse. — Poli  Ep.  v.  52.  I give  this 
quotation,  because  it  has  been  brought  as  a plain  proof  that  Gardiner 
was  the  very  soul  of  the  persecution  ! — Soames,  iv.  382. 

3 Ibid.  206. 


494 


MARY. 


chap,  were  owing  to  the  hirelings  of  Noailles,  or  to  the  policy 
a.d.  1555.  of  the  ministers,  who  demanded  more  than  they  meant 
to  accept,  Mary,  by  message,  declined  the  two  fif- 
teenths, and  was  content  with  a subsidy  of  less  amount 
than  had  been  originally  proposed.1 

The  death  of  Gardiner  interrupted  the  plans  of  the 
council.  That  minister  had  undertaken  to  procure 
the  consent  of  parliament  to  the  queen’s  plan  of  re- 
storing the  church  property  vested  in  the  crown  : now 
Mary  herself  assumed  his  office,  and,  sending  for  a 
Nov.  23.  deputation  from  each  house,  explained  her  wish,  and 
the  reasons  on  which  it  was  grounded.  In  the  Lords, 
the  bill  passed  with  only  two  dissentient  voices ; in 
the  Commons,  it  had  to  encounter  considerable  oppo- 
sition, but  it  was  carried  by  a majority  of  193  to  126. 
By  it  the  tenths  and  first-fruits,  the  rectories,  benefices 
appropriate,  glebe-lands,  and  tithes  annexed  to  the 
crown,  since  the  twentieth  of  Henry  VIII.,  producing 
a yearly  revenue  of  about  sixty  thousand  pounds,  were 
resigned  by  the  queen,  and  placed  at  the  disposal  of 
the  cardinal,  for  the  augmentation  of  small  livings, 
the  support  of  preachers,  and  the  furnishing  of  exhi- 
bitions to  scholars  in  the  universities;  but  subject,  at 


1 The  subsidy  was  of  two  shillings  in  the  pound  on  lands,  eight- 
pence  on  goods  to  ten  pounds,  twelve  pence  to  twenty  pounds,  and 
sixteen  pence  above  twenty  (Stat.  iv.  301)  ; but  those  who  paid  for 
land  were  not  rated  for  their  personalties.  Lord  Talbot  tells  his 
father,  that  u the  common  housse  wold  have  graunted  hurr  ii.  fyf- 
iC  tenes,”  but  that  she,  “ of  hurr  lyberalyte,  refusyd  it,  and  said, 
u sho  wold  not  take  no  more  of  them  at  thattyme.” — Lodge,  i.  207. 
“ She  gave  thanks  for  the  two  fifteenths,  and  was  contented  to 
“refuse  them.” — Journal  of  Commons,  p.  43.  “We  have  for- 
“ borne  to  ask  any  fifteenths.” — The  queen  to  the  earl  of  Bath, 
in  Mr.  Gage’s  elegant  “History  and  Antiquities  of  Hengrave,” 
p.  154.  Yet  Noailles  asserts  that  the  fifteenths  were  refused  by 
parliament,  and  takes  to  himself  the  merit  of  the  refusal  (v.  185, 
190,  252).  I often  suspect  that  this  ambassador  deceived  his  master 
intentionally. 


RESTORATION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 


495 


the  same  time,  to  all  the  pensions  and  corrodies  with 
which  they  had  been  previously  encumbered.1  In 
consequence  of  this  session,  Pole  ordered  that  the 
exaction  of  the  first-fruits  should  immediately  cease; 
that  livings  of  twenty  marks  and  under  should  be  re- 
lieved from  the  annual  payment  of  tenths  ; that  livings 
of  a greater  value  should,  for  the  present,  contribute 
only  one  twentieth  toward  the  charges  with  which  the 
clergy  were  burdened ; and  that  the  patronage  of  the 
rectories  and  vicarages,  previously  vested  in  the  crown, 
should  revert  to  the  bishops  of  the  respective  dioceses, 
who,  in  return,  should  contribute  proportionably  to  a 
present  of  seven  thousand  pounds  to  be  made  to  the 
king  and  queen.2 

About  the  same  time,  that  the  monastic  bodies 
might  not  complain  of  neglect,  Mary  re-established  the 
Grey  Friars  at  Greenwich,  the  Carthusians  at  Sheen, 
and  the  Brigittins  at  Sion ; three  houses,  the  former 
inhabitants  of  which  had  provoked  the  vengeance  of 
Henry,  by  their  conscientious  opposition  to  his  innova- 
tions. The  dean  and  prebendaries  of  Westminster 
retired  on  pensions,  and  yielded  their  places  to  a 
colony  of  twenty-eight  Benedictine  monks,  all  of 
them  beneficed  clergymen,  who  had  quitted  their 

1 Stat.  iv.  275.  Pole,  v.  46,  51,  53,  56.  Some  writers  have  said 
that  the  queen  sought  to  procure  an  act,  compelling  the  restoration 
of  church  property,  in  whatever  hands  it  might  be.  The  contrary  is 
evident  from  the  whole  tenour  of  Pole’s  correspondence. 

2 Wilk  Con.  153,  175,  177.  Noailles  says  that  several  bills  pro- 
posed by  the  court  were  rejected  (v.  252) ; yet  only  one  of  them  is 
mentioned  in  the  journals  of  either  house,  “ against  such  as  had 
“ departed  the  realm  without  leave,  or  should  contemptuously  make 
“ their  abode  there.”  It  was  unanimously  passed  by  the  Lords,  but 
was  lost  on  a division  in  the  Commons. — Journals,  46.  I may 
add,  that  Burnet  (ii.  322)  represents  Story  as  opposing,  in  this 
parliament,  u licences”  from  Rome.  The  journals  show  that  the 
“ licences”  were  monopolies,  granted  by  the  queen,  her  father,  and 
her  brother. — Journals  of  Commons,  p.  44. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555- 


496 


MARY. 


chap,  livings,  to  embrace  the  monastic  institute.1  In  addi- 
a.d.  1555.  tion,  the  house  of  the  Knights  of  St.  John  arose  from 
its  ruins,  and  the  dignity  of  lord  prior  was  conferred 
on  Sir  Thomas  Tresham.  But  these  renewed  estab- 
lishments fell  again  on  the  queen’s  demise  ; her  hos- 
pital at  the  Savoy  was  alone  suffered  to  remain.  She 
had  endowed  it  with  abbey  lands ; and  the  ladies  ot 
the  court,  at  her  recommendation  or  command,  had 
furnished  it  with  necessaries. 

While  Gardiner  lived,  his  vigilance  had  checked  the 
intrigues  of  the  factious  : his  death  emboldened  them 
to  renew  their  machinations  against  the  government. 
Secret  meetings  were  now  held  ; defamatory  libels  on 
the  king  and  queen,  printed  on  the  continent,  were 
found  scattered  in  the  streets,  in  the  palace,  and  in 
both  houses  of  parliament ; and  reports  were  circu- 
Dcc.  4.  lated  that  Mary,  hopeless  of  issue  to  succeed  her,  had 
determined  to  settle  the  crown  on  her  husband  after 
her  decease.  If  we  may  believe  her  counsellors,  there 
was  no  foundation  for  these  rumours ; she  had  never 
hinted  any  such  design ; nor,  if  she  had,  would  she 
have  found  a man  to  second  it.2  But  it  was  for  the 
interest  of  the  French  monarch  that  the  falsehood 
should  be  believed  ; and  Noailles  made  every  effort 
to  support  its  credit.  Under  the  auspices  of  that 
intriguing  minister,  and  by  the  agency  of  Freitville, 
a French  refugee,  a new  conspiracy  was  formed,  which 
had  for  its  object  to  depose  Mary,  and  to  raise  Eliza- 
beth to  the  throne.  The  conduct  of  the  enterprise 
was  intrusted  to  Sir  Henry  Dudley,  a relation  and 

1 Feckenham  was  again  appointed  abbot,  but  only  for  three  years; 
for  the  cardinal  disapproved  of  the  ancient  custom  of  abbots  for 
life ; and  had  sent  to  Italy  for  two  monks,  who  might  establish  in 
England  the  discipline  observed  in  the  more  rigid  communities 
abroad. — Priuli  to  Beccatello,  in  Pole’s  Ep.  v.  app.  347. 

2 Noailles,  v.  174,  242,  365. 


Dudley’s  conspiracy. 


497 


partisan  of  the  attainted  duke  of  Northumberland,  chap. 
whose  services  had  been  purchased  by  the  French  a.d.  1555. 
king  with  the  grant  of  a considerable  pension.  The  D~6 
connections  of  Dudley,  with  the  chiefs  of  the  gospellers 
and  of  the  discontented  in  the  southern  counties,  fur- 
nished well-grounded  hopes  of  success  ; assurances  had 
been  obtained  of  the  willing  co-operation  of  Eliza- 
beth and  her  friends  ; and  the  French  cabinet  had 
engaged  to  convey  to  England,  at  the  shortest  warn- 
ing, the  earl  of  Devon,  then  on  his  road  from  Brussels 
to  Italy.  To  arrange  the  minor  details,  and  to  pro- 
cure the  necessary  supplies,  Dudley,  in  disguise,  sailed 
to  the  coast  of  Normandy,  and  was  followed  by  three  FeL^. 
more  of  the  conspirators ; but  they  arrived  at  a most 
inauspicious  moment,  just  when  the  king  had,  in 
opposition  to  the  remonstrances  of  his  minister  Mont- 
morency, concluded  a truce  for  five  years  with  Philip. 

Henry  was  embarrassed  by  their  presence.  Ashamed 
to  appear  as  an  accomplice  in  a conspiracy  against  a 
prince  with  whom  he  was  now  on  terms  of  amity,  he 
ordered  Dudley  and  his  companions  to  keep  themselves  Feb.  7. 
concealed,  and  advised  their  associates  in  England, 
particularly  the  lady  Elizabeth,  to  suspend,  for  some 
time,  the  projected  insurrection.  Events,  he  observed, 
would  follow  more  favourable  to  the  success  of  the 
enterprise  ; at  present  it  was  their  best  policy  to  re- 
main quiet,  and  to  elude  suspicion  by  assuming  the 
mask  of  loyalty.1 

1 Noailles,  232,  234,  254,  255,  256,  262,  263,  302.  That  the 
lady  Elizabeth  was  concerned  in  it,  seems  placed  beyond  dispute  by 
the  following  passage  in  the  instructions  to  Noailles,  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  truce  : Et  surtout  eviter  que  madame  Elizabeth  ne  se 
remue  en  sorte  du  monde  pour  entreprendre  ce  que  m’escrivez ; car 
ce  seroit  tout  gaster,  et  perdre  le  fruict  qu’ilz  peulvent  attendre  de 
leurs  desseings,  qu’il  est  besoign  traicter  et  mesner  a la  longue. — 

Ibid.  299. 

YOL.  Y.  2 K 


498 


MARY. 


chap.  But  dilatory  counsels  accorded  not  with  the  despe- 
a.d.  i'556.  rate  circumstances  of  Kingston,  Throckmorton,  Udal, 
Staunton,  and  the  other  conspirators  ; who,  rejecting 
the  advice  of  their  French  ally,  determined  to  carry 
into  immediate  execution  the  first  part  of  the  original 
plot.  To  excite  or  foment  the  public  discontent,  they 
had  reported  that  Philip  devoted  to  Spanish  purposes 
the  revenue  of  the  English  crown ; though  at  the 
same  time  they  knew  that,  on  different  occasions,  he 
had  brought  an  immense  mass  of  treasure  into  the 
kingdom,1  of  which  one  portion  had  been  distributed 
in  presents,  another  had  served  to  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  the  marriage,  and  the  remainder,  amount- 
ing to  fifty  thousand  pounds,  was  still  lodged  in  the 
March.  Exchequer.  A plan  was  devised  to  surprise  the 
guard,  and  to  obtain  possession  of  this  money ; but 
one  of  the  conspirators  proved  a traitor  to  his  fellows  ; 
of  the  others,  several  apprehended  by  his  means  paid 
the  forfeit  of  their  lives,  and  many  sought  and  obtained 
April  28.  an  asylum  in  France.  The  lord  Clinton,  who  had 
May  19.  been  commissioned  to  congratulate  Henry  on  the 
June  8.  conclusion  of  the  truce,  immediately  demanded  the 
fugitives,  as  “ traitors,  heretics,  and  outlaws/’  Mary 
had  recently  gratified  the  king  in  a similar  request ; 
he  could  not,  in  decency,  return  a refusal,  but  replied, 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  persons  in  question  ; if 
they  had  been  received  in  France,  it  must  have  been 

1 On  one  occasion,  twenty-seven  chests  of  bullion,  each  above  a 
yard  long,  were  conveyed  to  the  Tower  in  twenty  carts ; on  another 
ninety-nine  horses  and  two  carts  were  employed  for  a similar  pur- 
pose.— Stowe,  626.  Heylin,  209.  Persons  assures  us  that  Philip 
defrayed  all  the  expenses  of  the  combined  fleet  which  escorted  him 
to  England,  and  of  the  festivities  in  honour  of  the  marriage. — Ward- 
word,  108.  And  the  Venetian  ambassador  informs  the  senate,  that 
the  report  of  his  spending  the  money  of  the  nation  was  false ; he 
had  spent  immense  sums  of  his  own. — Barber,  MSS.  No.  1208. 


ELIZABETH  ACCUSED. 


499 


through  respect  to  the  queen,  whose  subjects  they  had 
stated  themselves  to  be ; all  that  he  could  do  was  to 
make  inquiry,  and  to  order  that  the  moment  they  were 
discovered  they  should  be  delivered  to  the  resident 
ambassador.  With  this  illusory  answer  Lord  Clinton 
returned.1 

Among  the  prisoners  apprehended  in  England  were 
Peckham  and  Werne,  two  officers  in  the  household  of 
Elizabeth,  from  whose  confessions  much  was  elicited 
to  implicate  the  princess  herself.  She  was  rescued 
from  danger  by  the  interposition  of  Philip,  who,  de- 
spairing of  issue  by  his  wife,-  foresaw  that,  if  Elizabeth 
were  removed  out  of  the  way,  the  English  crown,  at 
the  decease  of  Mary,  would  be  claimed  by  the  young 
queen  of  Scots,  the  wife  of  the  dauphin  of  France. 
It  was  for  his  interest  to  prevent  a succession  which 
would  add  so  considerably  to  the  power  of  his  rival, 
and  for  that  purpose  to  preserve  the  life  of  the  only 
person  who,  with  any  probability  of  success,  could 
oppose  the  claim  of  the  Scottish  queen.  By  his  orders 
the  inquiry  was  dropped,  and  Mary,  sending  to  her 
sister  a ring  in  token  of  her  affection,  professed  to 
believe  that  Elizabeth  was  innocent,  and  that  her 
officers  had  presumed  to  make  use  of  her  name  with- 
out her  authority.  They  were  executed  as  traitors  ; 
and  the  princess  gladly  accepted,  in  their  place,  Sir 
Thomas  Pope  and  Robert  Gage,  at  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  council.2 

Many  weeks  did  not  elapse  before  the  exiles  in 

1 Stowe,  628.  Noailles,  313,  327,  347,  353.  The  object  of  the 
Erench  king  was  d’entretenir  Duddelay  doulcement  et  secrettement, 
pour  s’en  servir,  s’il  en  est  de  besoign,  lui  donnant  moyen  d’entre- 
tenir aussy  par  dela  les  intelligences. — Ibid.  310. 

2 MS.  Life  of  the  Duchess  of  Feria,  154.  Strype,  297,  298. 
Philopater,  Resp.  ad  edictum,  p.  70. 

2 K 2 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


Juno. 


500 


MARY. 


chap.  France  made  a new  attempt  to  excite  an  insurrection. 
a.d.  1556.  There  was  among  them  a young  man,  of  the  name  of 
Cleobury,  whose  features  bore  a strong  resemblance  to 
those  of  the  earl  of  Devon.  Having  been  instructed 
in  the  character  which  he  had  undertaken  to  act,  he 
was  landed  on  the  coast  of  Sussex,  assumed  the  name 
of  the  earl,  spoke  of  the  princess  as  privy  to  his  design, 
and  took  the  opportunity  to  proclaim  in  the  church  of 
Yaxely,  “the  lady  Elizabeth  queen,  and  her  beloved 
July.  “bed-fellow,  Lord  Edward  Courtenay,  king.”  There 
was  supposed  to  exist  a kind  of  magic  in  the  name  of 
Courtenay;  but  the  result  dissipated  the  illusion. 
The  people,  as  soon  as  they  had  recovered  from  their 
surprise,  pursued  and  apprehended  Cleobury,  who 
Sept,  20.  suffered,  at  Bury,  the  penalty  of  his  treason.1  Two 
months  later  the  real  earl  of  Devon  died  of  an  ague 
in  Padua. 

Though  Cleobury  had  employed  the  name  of  Eliza- 
beth, we  have  no  reason  to  charge  her  with  participa- 
tion in  the  imposture.  The  council  pretended,  at 
least,  to  believe  her  innocent ; and  she  herself,  in  a 
letter  to  Mary,  expressed  her  detestation  of  all  such 
attempts,  wishing,  that  “ there  were  good  surgeons  for 
“ making  anatomies  of  hearts  ; then,  whatsoever  others 
“ should  subject  by  malice,  the  queen  would  be  sure 
“ of  by  knowledge ; and  the  more  such  misty  clouds 
“ should  offuscate  the  clear  light  of  her  truth,  the 
“ more  her  tried  thoughts  would  glister  to  the  dimming 
“ of  their  hidden  malice.”2  Agitated,  however,  by  her 

1 See  a letter  from  the  privy  council  to  the  earl  of  Bath,  with  a 
passage  from  the  Harl.  MS.  537,  in  Gage’s  Hengrave,  158. 

2 Stowe,  628.  The  letters  are  in  Burnet,  ii.  Rec.  314;  Strype, 
iii.  335,  338.  In  the  correspondence  of  Noailles  with  his  sovereign, 
to  encourage  these  conspirators  is  elegantly  termed,  keeping  la  puce 
a l’oreille  de  la  royne. — Noailles,  309,  329. 


rHER  OBJECTIONS  TO  MARRY.  501 

fears,  whether  they  arose  from  the  consciousness  of 
guilt  or  from  the  prospect  of  future  danger,  she  re- 
solved to  seek  an  asylum  in  France,  of  which  she  had 
formerly  received  an  offer  from  Henry  through  thehands 
of  Noailles.1  With  the  motives  of  the  king  we  are  not 
acquainted.  He  may  have  wished  to  create  additional 
embarrassment  to  Mary,  perhaps  to  have  in  his  power 
the  only  rival  of  his  daughter-in-law,  the  queen  ol 
Scotland.  But  Hoailles  was  gone ; and  his  brother 
und  successor,  the  bishop  of  Acqs,  appears  to  have 
received  no  instructions  on  the  subject.  When  the 
countess  of  Sussex  waited  on  him  in  disguise,  and 
inquired  whether  he  possessed  the  means  of  transport- 
ing the  princess  in  safety  to  France,  he  expressed  the 
strongest  disapprobation  of  the  project,  and  advised 
Elizabeth  to  learn  wisdom  from  the  conduct  of  her 
sister.  Had  Mary,  after  the  death  of  Edward,  listened 
to  those  who  wished  her  to  take  refuge  with  the 
emperor  in  Flanders,  she  would  still  have  remained  in 
exile.  If  Elizabeth  hoped  to  ascend  the  throne,  she 
must  never  leave  the  shores  of  England.  The  countess 
returned  with  a similar  message,  and  received  again 
the  same  advice.  A few  years  later  the  ambassador 
boasted  that  Elizabeth  was  indebted  to  him  for  her 
crown.2 

Had  the  princess  been  willing  to  marry,  she  might 
easily  have  extricated  herself  from  these  embarrass- 
ments ; but  from  policy  or  inclination  she  obstinately 
rejected  every  proposal.  As  presumptive  heir  to  the 
erown,  she  was  sought  by  different  princes ; and,  as 
her  sincerity  in  the  profession  of  the  ancient  faith  was 
generally  questioned,  men  were  eager  to  see  her 
1 Camden,  Apparat.  20. 

2 See  his  letter  of  December  2,  1570,  to  Du  Haillant,  in  Noailles, 

i-  334- 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


502 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


united,  the  Catholics  to  a Catholic,  the  Protestants  to 
a Protestant  husband.  Her  suitors  professing  the 
reformed  doctrines  were  the  king  of  Denmark  for  his 
son,  and  the  king  of  Sweden  for  himself.  The  envoy 
of  the  latter  reached  her  house  in  disguise ; but  he  was 
refused  admission,  and  referred  to  the  queen,  to  whom 
Elizabeth  averred  that  she  had  never  heard  the  name 
of  his  master  before,  and  hoped  never  to  hear  it  again  ; 
adding,  that  as,  in  the  reign  of  Edward,  she  had  refused 
several  offers,  so  she  persisted  in  the  same  resolution 
of  continuing,  with  her  sister’s  good  pleasure,  a single 
woman.  The  Catholic  suitor  was  Philibert,  duke  of 
Savoy,  whose  claim  was  strenuously  supported  by 
Philip,  through  gratitude,  as  he  pretended,  to  a prince 
who  had  lost  his  hereditary  dominions  in  consequence 
of  his  adherence  to  the  interests  of  Spain ; but  through 
a more  selfish  motive,  if  we  may  believe  politicians,  a 
desire  to  preserve  after  the  death  of  Mary  the  existing 
alliance  between  the  English  and  Spanish  crowns. 
In  despair  of  issue  by  the  queen,  what  could  he  do- 
better  than  give  to  Elizabeth,  the  heir  apparent,  his 
personal  friend  for  a husband  ? He  met,  however, 
with  an  obstinate,  and  probably  unexpected,  opponent- 
in  his  wife  ; and,  aware  of  her  piety,  sought  to  remove 
her  objection  by  the  authority  of  his  confessor,  and  of 
other  divines,  who  are  said  to  have  represented  the 
proposed  marriage  as  the  only  probable  means  of 
securing  the  permanence  of  the  Catholic  worship  after 
her  death.  Overcome  rather  than  convinced,  Mary 
signified  her  assent ; but  revoked  it  the  next  day,, 
alleging  that  it  was  essential  to  marriage  that  it  should 
be  free,  and  that  her  conscience  forbade  her  to  compel 
her  sister  to  wed  the  man  of  whom  she  disapproved.’ 

1 MS.  reports  of  Michele  and  Soriano.  Camden,  20.  Burnet,  ii. 


TROUBLES  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


503 


From  that  period,  the  princess  resided,  apparently  at 
liberty,  but  in  reality  under  the  eyes  of  watchful 
guardians,  in  her  house  at  Hatfield,  and  occasionally 
at  court.  Her  friends  complained  that  her  allowance 
did  not  enable  her  to  keep  up  the  dignity  of  second 
person  in  the  realm.  But  it  would  have  been  folly  in 
the  queen  to  have  supplied  Elizabeth  with  the  means 
of  multiplying  her  adherents ; and  she  was,  at  the 
same  time,  anxious  to  reduce  the  enormous  debt  of 
the  crown.  With  this  view  she  had  adopted  a severe 
system  of  retrenchment  in  her  own  household ; it 
could  not  be  expected  that  she  should  encourage 
expense  in  the  household  of  her  sister. 

But  whatever  were  the  mental  sufferings  of  Eliza- 
beth, they  bore  no  proportion  to  those  of  Mary, 
i . The  queen  was  perfectly  aware  that  her  popularity, 
which  at  first  had  seated  her  on  the  throne,  had  long 
been  on  the  decline.  She  had  incurred  the  hatred  of 
the  merchants  and  country  gentlemen  by  the  loans  of 
money  which  her  poverty  had  compelled  her  to  require ; 
her  economy,  laudable  as  it  was  in  her  circumstances, 
had  earned  for  her  the  reproach  of  parsimony  from 
some,  and  of  ingratitude  from  others ; the  enemies  of 
her  marriage  continued  to  predict  danger  to  the  liber- 
ties of  England  from  the  influence  of  her  Spanish 
husband  ; the  Protestants,  irritated  by  persecution, 
ardently  wished  for  another  sovereign ; the  most 
malicious  reports,  the  most  treasonable  libels,  even 
hints  of  assassination,  were  circulated ; and  men  were 

llec.  325.  Strype,  iii.  317,  318,  Rec.  189.  The  Spaniards  at- 
tributed her  refusal  to  her  dislike  of  Elizabeth,  and  the  advice  of 
Cardinal  Pole,  whom  they  hated  because  he  constantly  opposed  their 
attempts  to  make  Philip  “ absolute  lord  ; per  far  il  re  signor  abso- 
“ luto.”  Hence  Grandvelt  said  to  Soriano  that  the  cardinal  was 
“ no  statesman,  nor  fit  either  to  advise  or  govern.” — Soriano,  ibid. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


504 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1556. 


found  to  misrepresent  to  the  public  all  her  actions,  as 
proceeding  from  interested  or  anti-national  motives. 
2.  She  began  to  fear  for  the  permanency  of  that 
religious  worship  which  it  had  been  the  first  wish  of 
her  heart  to  re-establish.  She  saw,  that  the  fires  of 
Smithfield  had  not  subdued  the  obstinacy  of  the 
dissenters  from  the  established  creed ; she  knew  that 
in  the  higher  classes  few  had  any  other  religion  than 
their  own  interest  or  convenience ; and  she  had 
reason  to  suspect  that  the  presumptive  heir  to  the 
crown,  though  she  had  long  professed  herself  a Catho- 
lic, still  cherished  in  her  breast  those  principles  which 
she  had  imbibed  in  early  youth.  3.  On  Elizabeth 
herself  she  could  not  look  without  solicitude.  It  was 
natural  that  the  wrongs  which  Catherine  of  Arragon 
had  suffered  from  the  ascendancy  of  Anne  Boleyn 
should  beget  a feeling  of  hostility  between  their  re- 
spective daughters.  But  the  participation  of  Elizabeth 
in  the  first  insurrection  had  widened  the  breach ; and 
the  frequent  use  made  of  her  name  by  every  sub- 
sequent conspirator  served  to  confirm  the  suspicions 
of  one  sister,  and  to  multiply  the  apprehensions  of  the 
other.  In  the  eye  of  Mary,  Elizabeth  was  a bastard 
and  a rival ; in  that  of  Elizabeth,  Mary  was  a jealous 
and  vindictive  sovereign.  To  free  her  mind  of  this 
burden,  the  queen  had  lately  thought  of  declaring  her 
by  act  of  parliament  illegitimate  and  incapable  of 
the  succession;  but  the  king  would  consent  to  no 
measure  which,  by  weakening  the  claim  of  Elizabeth, 
might  strengthen  that  of  the  dauphiness  to  the  crown.1 

1 Nel  tempo  della  gravidanza  della  regina,  che  fu  fatta  venire  in 
corte,  seppe  cosi  ben  providere  et  mettersi  in  gratia  della  natione 
Spagnuola,  et  particolarmente  del  Re,  che  da  niuno  poi  e stata  piu 
favorita  che  da  lui;  il  quale  non  solo  non  velle  permettere,  ma  si 
oppose  et  impedi,  che  non  fosse,  come  volea  la  regina,  per  atto  di 


THE  POPE’S  QUARREL  WITH  SPAIN. 


505 


Mary  acquiesced  in  the  will  of  her  husband  ; and  from  chap. 
that  time,  whenever  Elizabeth  came  to  court,  treated  a.d.  1556. 
her  in  private  with  kindness,  and  in  public  with  dis- 
tinction. Yet  it  was  thought  that  there  was  in  this 
more  of  show  than  of  reality ; and  that  doubt  and  fear, 
jealousy  and  resentment,  still  lurked  within  her  bosom. 

Lastly,  the  absence  of  her  husband  was  a source  of  daily 
disquietude.  If  she  loved  him,  Philip  had  deserved  it 
by  his  kindness  and  attention.  To  be  deprived  of  his 
society  was  of  itself  a heavy  affliction ; but  it  was 
most  severely  felt  when  she  stood  in  need  of  advice 
and  support.1  Gardiner,  whose  very  name  had  awed 
the  factious,  was  no  more.  His  place  had,  indeed, 
been  supplied  by  Heath,  archbishop  of  York,  a learned 
and  upright  prelate ; but,  though  he  might  equal  his 
predecessor  in  abilities  and  zeal,  he  was  less  known, 
and  therefore  less  formidable,  to  the  adversaries  of 
the  government.  It  is  not  surprising,  that,  in  such 
circumstances,  the  queen  should  wish  for  the  presence 
and  protection  of  her  husband.  She  importuned  him 
by  long  and  repeated  letters ; she  sent  the  lord  Paget  iS5^ 
to  urge  him  to  return  without  delay.  But  Philip,  to  Oot-  2s- 
whom  his  father  had  resigned  all  his  dominions  in 
Spain,  Italy,  and  the  Netherlands,  was  overwhelmed  1556. 
with  business  of  more  importance  to  him  than  the 
tranquillity  of  his  wife  or  of  her  government ; and,  to 
pacify  her  mind,  he  made  her  frequent  promises,  the 
fulfilment  of  which  it  was  always  in  his  power  to  elude. 

He  had  lately  seen  with  alarm  the  elevation  to  the 

parlamento  directata  et  declarata  bastarda,  et  consequentamente  in- 
habile  alia  successione. — Lansdowne  MS.,  No.  840,  B. 

1 All  these  particulars  respecting  Elizabeth,  and  the  troubles  of 
Mary,  are  taken  from  the  interesting  memoir  of  Michele,  the  Vene- 
tian ambassador. — Lansdowne  MSS.  840,  B.  fol.  155,  157,  160. 

Noailles  represents  her  as  afflicted  with  jealousy ; but  this  writer 
declares  the  contrary. 


506 


MARY. 


chap,  pontifical  dignity  of  the  cardinal  Caraffa,  by  birth  a 
a.d.  1556.  Neapolitan,  who  had  always  distinguished  himself  by 
his  opposition  to  the  Spanish  ascendancy  in  his  native 
country,  and  on  that  account  had  suffered  occasional 
affronts  from  the  resentment  of  Ferdinand  and  Charles. 
The  symptoms  of  dissension  soon  appeared.  Philip 
suspected  a design  against  his  kingdom  of  Naples ; 
and  the  new  pontiff  supported  with  menaces  what  he 
deemed  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See.  The  negotiations 
between  the  two  powers,  their  mutual  complaints  and 
recriminations,  are  subjects  foreign  from  this  history ; 
but  the  result  was  a strong  suspicion  in  the  mind  of 
Paul,  that  the  Spaniards  sought  to  remove  him  from 
the  popedom,  and  a resolution  on  his  part  to  place 
himself  under  the  protection  of  France.  It  chanced 
that  about  midsummer,  in  the  year  1556,  despatches 
were  intercepted  at  Terracina,  from  Garcilasso  della 
Vega,  the  Spanish  agent  in  Home,  to  the  duke  of 
Alva,  the  viceroy  of  Naples,  describing  the  defenceless 
state  of  the  papal  territory,  and  the  ease  with  which 
it  might  be  conquered,  before  an  army  could  be  raised 
for  its  defence.  The  suspicion  of  the  pontiff  was  now 
confirmed  ; he  ordered  the  chiefs  of  the  Spanish  faction 
in  Home  to  be  arrested  as  traitors  ; and  instructed 
his  officers  to  proceed  against  Philip  for  a breach  of 
the  feudal  tenure  by  which  he  held  the  kingdom  of 
Naples.  But  the  viceroy  advanced  with  a powerful 
army  as  far  as  Tivoli ; Paul,  to  save  his  capital,  sub- 
mitted to  solicit  an  armistice  ; and  the  war  would 
have  been  terminated  without  bloodshed,  had  not  the 
duke  of  Guise,  at  the  head  of  a French  army,  hastened 
^557*  into  Italy.  Henry  had  secretly  concluded  a league 
with  the  pope  soon  after  his  accession  to  the  pon- 
tificate ; he  violated  that  treaty  by  consenting  to  the 


PEACE  BROKEN  BY  HENRY. 


507 


truce  with  Philip  for  five  years ; and  now  he  broke 
the  truce,  in  the  hope  of  humbling  the  pride  of  the 
Spanish  monarch,  by  placing  a French  prince  on  the 
throne  of  Naples,  and  investing  another  with  the  ducal 
coronet  of  Milan.1 

It  seems  that,  in  the  estimation  of  this  prince,  every 
breach  of  treaty,  every  departure  from  honesty,  might 
be  justified  on  the  plea  of  expediency.2  He  had  no 
real  cause  of  resentment  against  Mary ; and  yet,  from 
the  commencement  of  her  reign,  he  had  acted  the 
part  of  a bitter  enemy.  His  object  had  been,  first  to 
prevent  the  marriage  of  the  queen  with  Philip,  and 
then  to  disable  her  from  lending  aid  to  her  husband. 
With  these  views  he  had,  under  the  mask  of  friend- 
ship, fomented  the  discontent  of  her  subjects,  had 
encouraged  them  to  rise  in  arms  against  her,  and  had 
offered  an  asylum  and  furnished  pensions  to  her  rebels. 
Having  determined  to  renew  the  war  with  Philip,  he 
called  on  Dudley  and  his  associates  to  resume  their 
treasonable  practices  against  Mary.  In  Calais,  and 
the  territory  belonging  to  Calais,  were  certain  families 
of  reformers,  whose  resentment  had  been  kindled  by 
the  persecution  of  their  brethren.  With  these  the 
chiefs  of  the  fugitives  opened  a clandestine  corre- 
spondence ; and  a plan  was  arranged  for  the  delivery 
of  Harames  and  Gruisnes,  two  important  fortresses, 


1 See  these  particulars,  drawn  from  the  original  documents  by 
Pallavicino,  ii.  436 — 476.  The  complaints  of  the  duke  of  Alva,  and 
the  recrimination  of  the  college  of  cardinals,  are  in  the  Lettere  de’ 
Principi,  i.  190. 

2 It  is  amusing  to  observe  that,  while  Noailles  perpetually  accuses 
Englishmen  of  habits  of  falsehood,  he  is  continually  practising  it 
himself,  sometimes  of  choice,  sometimes  by  order  of  his  sovereign. 
Thus,  with  respect  to  the  league  with  the  pope,  he  was  instructed 
to  keep  it  secret,  couvrant,  niant,  cachant,  et  desniant  ladicte  intel- 
ligence avecques  3adite  sainctete. — Noailles,  v.  199. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1557. 


508 


MARY. 


chap,  into  the  hands  of  the  French.1  But  the  enterprise,  to 
a.d.  1557.  the  mortification  of  Henry,  was  defeated  by  the  com- 
March.  niunications  of  a spy  in  the  pay  of  the  English  govern- 
ment, who  wormed  himself  into  the  confidence,  and 
betrayed  the  secrets,  of  the  conspirators.  Within  a 
few  days  a different  attempt  was  made  by  another  of 
the  exiles,  Thomas  Stafford,  second  son  to  Lord  Staf- 
ford, and  grandson  to  the  last  duke  of  Buckingham. 
With  a small  force  of  Englishmen,  Scots,  and  French- 
men, he  sailed  from  Dieppe,  surprised  the  old  castle  of 
Scarborough,  and  immediately  published  a proclama- 
Aprii  24.  tion,  as  protector  and  governor  of  the  realm.  He  was 
come,  “ not  to  work  to  his  own  advancement,  touching 
“ the  possession  of  the  crown,”  but  to  deliver  his 
countrymen  from  the  tyranny  of  strangers,  and  “ to 
“ defeat  the  most  devilish  devices  of  Mary,  unrightful 
“ and  unworthy  queen;”  who  had  forfeited  her  claim 
to  the  sceptre  by  her  marriage  to  a Spaniard,  who 
lavished  all  the  treasures  of  the  realm  upon  Spaniards, 
and  who  had  resolved  to  deliver  the  twelve  strongest 
fortresses  in  the  kingdom  to  twelve  thousand  Spaniards. 
He  had  determined  to  die  bravely  in  the  field,  rather 
than  see  the  slavery  of  his  country ; and  he  called  on 
all  Englishmen,  animated  with  similar  sentiments,  to 
join  the  standard  of  independence,  and  to  fight  for  the 
preservation  of  their  lives,  lands,  wives,  children,  and 
treasures,  from  the  possession  of  Spaniards.  But 
his  hopes  were  quickly  extinguished.  Not  a man 
obeyed  the  proclamation.  Wotton,  the  English  am- 
bassador, had  apprized  the  queen  of  his  design ; and 
April  28.  on  the  fourth  day,  before  any  aid  could  arrive  from 
France,  the  earl  of  Westmoreland  appeared  with  a 
considerable  force,  when  Stafford,  unable  to  defend 
1 The  information,  given  by  the  spy,  is  in  Strype,  iii.  358. 


Stafford’s  plot  and  surrender.  509 

the  ruins  of  the  castle,  surrendered  at  discretion.1  The  chap 

vi. 

failure  of  these  repeated  attempts  ought  to  have  a.d.  1557. 
undeceived  the  French  monarch.  Noailles  and  the 
exiles  had  persuaded  him  that  discontent  pervaded  the 
whole  population  of  the  kingdom  ; that  every  man 
longed  to  free  himself  from  the  rule  of  Mary;  and 
that,  at  the  first  call,  multitudes  would  unsheath  their 
swords  against  her.  But  whenever  the  trial  was  made, 
the  result  proved  the  contrary.  Men  displayed  their 
loyalty,  by  opposing  the  traitors ; and  Henry,  by  at- 
tempting to  embarrass  the  queen,  provoked  her  to  lend 
to  her  husband  that  aid  which  it  was  his  great  object 
to  avert. 

Hitherto  Philip  had  discovered  no  inclination  for 
war.  Content  with  the  extensive  dominions  which  had 
fallen  to  his  lot,  he  sought  rather  to  enjoy  the  plea- 
sures becoming  his  youth  and  station,  and,  during  his 
residence  in  England,  had  devoted  much  of  his  time 
to  the  chase,  to  parties  of  amusement,  and  to  exercises 
of  arms.2  The  bad  faith  of  Henry  awakened  his  re- 
sentment, and  compelled  him  to  draw  the  sword. 

But,  though  the  armistice  had  been  broken  in  Italy, 
he  was  careful  to  make  no  demonstration  of  hostilities 
in  Flanders,  hoping  by  this  apparent  inactivity  to 
deceive  the  enemy,  till  he  had  collected  a numerous 
force  in  Spain,  and  engaged  an  army  of  mercenaries 
in  Germany.  In  March  he  revisited  Mary,  not  so  March  x7. 
much  in  deference  to  her  representations,  as  to  draw 

1 Stafford’s  proclamation,  and  the  queen’s  answer,  are  in  Strype, 
iii.  Rec.  259 — 262;  Godwin,  129;  Heylin,  242.  The  pretence 
that  this  plot  was  got  up  by  Wotton,  the  English  ambassador  in 
France,  in  order  to  provoke  the  queen  to  war,  is  improbable  in  itself, 
and  must  appear  incredible  to  those  who  have  read,  in  the  letters  of 
Noailles,  his  notices  of  the  important,  though  hazardous  enterprises 
designed  by  the  exiles. — Noailles,  v.  256,  262. 

3 Noailles,  v.  221. 


510 


MARY. 


chap.  England  into  tlie  war  with  France.  It  is  no  wonder 
vt.  ° 

a.d.  1557.  that  the  queen,  after  the  provocations  which  she  had 
received,  should  be  willing  to  gratify  her  husband ; but 
she  left  the  decision  to  her  council,  in  which  the  ques- 
tion was  repeatedly  debated.  At  first  it  was  deter- 
mined in  the  negative,  on  account  of  the  poverty  of 
the  crown,  the  high  price  of  provisions,  the  rancour  of 
religious  parties,  and  the  condition  in  the  marriage 
treaty,  by  which  Philip  promised  not  to  involve  the 
nation  in  the  existing  war  against  France.  When 
it  was  replied,  that  the  present  was  a new  war,  and 
that,  to  preserve  the  dignity  of  the  crown,  it  was 
requisite  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  injuries  offered 
to  the  queen  by  Henry,  the  majority  of  the  council 
proposed  that  instead  of  embarking  as  a principal  in 
the  war,  she  should  confine  herself  to  that  aid  to 
which  she  was  bound  by  ancient  treaties,  as  the  ally 
of  the  house  of  Burgundy.  At  last  the  enterprise  of 
Stafford  effected  what  neither  the  influence  of  the 
king,  nor  the  known  inclination  of  the  queen,  had 
June  7.  been  able  to  accomplish.  A proclamation  was  issued, 
containing  charges  against  the  French  monarch,  which 
it  was  not  easy  to  refute.  From  the  very  accession  of 
Mary  he  had  put  on  the  appearance  of  a friend,  and 
acted  as  an  adversary.  He  had  approved  of  the  rebel- 
lion of  Northumberland,  and  supported  that  of  Wyat : 
to  him,  through  his  ambassador,  had  been  traced  the 
conspiracies  of  Dudley  and  Ashton ; and  from  him 
these  traitors  had  obtained  an  asylum  and  pensions ; 
by  his  suggestions,  attempts  had  been  made  to  surprise 
Calais  and  its  dependencies ; and  with  his  money 
Stafford  had  procured  the  ships  and  troops  with  which 
he  had  obtained  possession  of  the  castle  of  Scar- 
borough. The  king  and  queen  owed  it  to  themselves 


mary’s  defiance  to  henry. 


511 


and  to  the  nation,  to  resent  such  a succession  of  in-  chap. 
juries,  and  therefore  they  warned  the  English  mer-  a.d7is57. 
chants  to  abstain  from  all  traffic  in  the  dominions  of  a — ■ 

monarch  against  whom  it  was  intended  to  declare 
war,  and  from  whom  they  might  expect  the  confisca- 
tion of  their  property.1  Norroy  king-at-arms  was 
already  on  his  road  to  Paris.  According  to  the 
ancient  custom  he  defied  Henry,  who  coolly  replied 
that  it  did  not  become  him  to  enter  into  altercation 
with  a woman ; that  he  intrusted  his  quarrel  with 
confidence  to  the  decision  of  the  Almighty ; and  that 
the  result  would  reveal  to  the  world  who  had  the  better 
cause.  But,  when  he  heard  of  the  proclamation,  he 
determined  to  oppose  to  it  a manifesto,  in  which  he 
complained  that  Mary  had  maintained  spies  in  his 
dominions;  had  laid  new  and  heavy  duties  on  the 
importation  of  French  merchandise,  and  had  unne- 
cessarily adopted  the  personal  enmities  of  her  husband. 

The  bishop  of  Acqs  was  immediately  recalled  f at  June  12. 
Calais  he  improved  the  opportunity  to  examine  the 
fortifications,  and  remarked  that  from  the  gate  of  the 
harbour  to  the  old  castle,  and  from  the  castle  for  a 
considerable  distance  to  the  right,  the  rampart  lay 
in  ruins.  At  his  request  Senarpont,  governor  of 
Boulogne,  repaired  in  disguise  to  the  same  place, 
and  both  concurred  in  the  opinion  that  its  boasted 
strength  consisted  only  in  its  reputation,  and  that, 
in  its  present  state,  it  offered  an  easy  conquest  to  a 
sudden  and  unexpected  assailant.  The  ambassador, 
when  he  reached  the  court,  acquainted  his  sovereign 
with  the  result  of  these  observations ; but  at  the  same 
time  laid  before  him  a faithful  portrait  of  the  exiles 
and  their  adherents.  The  zeal  of  his  brother  had 
1 Transcripts  for  Rymer,  359.  Godwin,  129.  Holins.  1133. 


512 


MARY. 


chap,  induced  him  to  magnify  the  importance  of  these 
A-D-  TS57-  people.  Their  number  was  small,  their  influence 
inconsiderable,  and  their  fidelity  doubtful.  Experi- 
ence had  shown  that  they  were  more  desirous  to 
obtain  the  favour  of  their  sovereign  by  betraying  each 
other,  than  by  molesting  her  to  fulfil  their  engagements 
to  Henry.1 

July  6.  Philip  was  now  returned  to  Flanders,  where  the 
mercenaries  from  Germany,  and  the  troops  from  Spain, 
had  already  arrived.  The  earl  of  Pembroke  followed 
at  the  head  of  seven  thousand  Englishmen  ;2  and  the 
command  of  the  combined  army,  consisting  of  forty 
thousand  men,  was  assumed  by  Philibert,  duke  of 
Savoy.  Having  successively  threatened  Marienberg, 
Bocroi,  and  Guise,  he  suddenly  halted  before  the 
town  of  St.  Quintin  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Somme. 
Henry  was  alarmed  for  the  safety  of  this  important 
place ; but  it  occurred  to  him  that  a supply  might  be 
sent  to  the  garrison  over  the  extensive  and  apparently 
impassable  morass,  which,  together  with  the  river, 
covered  one  side  of  the  town.  On  the  night  of  the 
ninth  of  August,  the  constable  Montmorency  marched 
from  La  Fere,  with  all  his  cavalry  and  fifteen  thousand 
infantry ; and,  about  nine  on  the  following  morning, 
August  io.  took  a position  close  to  the  marsh,  in  which  it  was 
calculated  that  he  might  remain  for  several  hours, 
without  the  possibility  of  molestation  on  the  part  of 
the  enemy.  The  boats,  which  had  been  brought  upon 
carts,  were  now  launched,  and  men,  provisions,  and 
ammunition  were  embarked.  But  the  operation  con- 

1 Noailles,  33,  35. 

2 To  equip  this  army,  the  queen  had  raised  a loan  by  privy  seals, 
dated  July  20,  31,  1556,  requiring  certain  gentlemen  in  different 
counties  to  lend  her  one  hundred  pounds  each,  to  be  repaid  in  the 
month  of  November  of  the  following  year. — Strype,  iii.  424. 


VICTORY  OF  ST.  QUINTIN. 


513 


sumed  more  time  than  had  been  calculated ; and  the 
Spaniards,  making  a long  detour,  and  crossing  the 
river  higher  up,  advanced  rapidly  by  a broad  and  solid 
road.  Their  cavalry,  a body  of  six  thousand  horse, 
easily  dispersed  a weak  force  of  reistres,  the  first  that 
opposed  them,  then  broke  the  French  cavalry,  and 
instantly  charged  the  infantry  at  a moment  when  they 
vrere  falling  back  on  the  reserve.  The  confusion  was 
irremediable.  The  constable  himself,  the  marshal 
St.  Andre,  and  most  of  the  superior  officers,  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  conquerors  ; and  one-half  of  the 
French  army  was  either  taken  or  slain.  The  Spanish 
cavalry  claimed  the  whole  glory  of  the  day.  Their 
infantry  did  not  arrive  before  the  battle  was  won ; 
and  the  English  auxiliaries  guarded  the  trenches  on 
the  other  bank  of  the  river.1 

It  was  but  a poor  consolation  to  Henry  for  the  loss 
of  his  army,  that  many  of  the  boats  on  the  marsh  had 
contrived  to  reach  the  town,  and  that  the  garrison 
with  this  supply  was  enabled  to  protract  the  siege  for 
another  fortnight.  On  the  arrival  of  Philip,  who  was 
accompanied  by  the  earl  of  Pembroke,  the  mines  were 
sprung,  the  assault  was  given,  the  defences  after  an 
obstinate  resistance  were  won,  and  the  English  auxil- 
iaries, as  they  shared  in  the  glory,  shared  also  in  the 
spoil  of  the  day.  It  was  the  only  opportunity  which 
they  had  of  distinguishing  themselves  during  the  cam- 
paign ; but  by  sea  the  English  fleet  rode  triumphant 
through  the  summer,  and  kept  the  maritime  provinces 
of  France  in  a state  of  perpetual  alarm.  Bordeaux 
and  Bayonne  were  alternately  menaced ; descents 
were  made  on  several  points  of  the  coast ; and  the 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1557. 


1 Cabrera,  157.  Mergez,  Mem.  xli.  24.  Tavannes,  xxvi.  164. 
VOL.  V.  2 L 


514 


MARY. 


chap,  plunder  of  the  defenceless  inhabitants  rewarded  the 
a.d.  1557.  services  of  the  adventurers.1 

When  Mary  determined  to  aid  her  husband  against 
Henry,  she  had  made  up  her  mind  to  a war  with  Scot- 
land. In  that  kingdom  the  national  animosity  against 
the  English,  the  ancient  alliance  with  France,  the 
marriage  of  the  queen  to  the  dauphin,  and  the  au- 
thority of  the  regent,  a French  princess,  had  given  to 
the  French  interest  a decided  preponderance.  From 
the  very  commencement  of  the  year,  the  Scots,  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  intimidation,  had  assumed  a menacing 
attitude ; the  moment  Mary  denounced  war  against 
Henry,  they  agreed  to  assist  him  by  invading  the 
northern  counties.  The  borderers  on  both  sides  re- 
commenced their  usual  inroads,  and  many  captures  of 
small  importance  were  reciprocally  made  at  sea.  But 
to  collect  a sufficient  force  for  the  invasion  required 
considerable  time ; before  the  equinox  the  weather 
became  stormy;  the  fords  and  roads  were  rendered 
impassable  by  the  rains ; and  a contagious  disease 
Oct.  11.  introduced  itself  into  the  Lowlands.  It  required 
considerable  exertion  on  the  part  of  the  queen  regent 
and  of  D’Oyselles,  the  ambassador,  to  assemble  the 
army  against  the  beginning  of  October;  and  they 
found  it  a still  more  difficult  task  to  guide  the  turbu- 
lent and  capricious  humour  of  the  Scottish  nobles. 
Oct.  17.  When  the  auxiliaries  from  France  crossed  the  Tweed 

1 Noailles.  i.  17 — 19.  The  success  of  the  combined  army  at 
St.  Quintin  irritated  the  venom  of  Goodman,  one  of  the  most  cele- 
brated of  the  exiles  at  Geneva,  who,  in  his  treatise  entitled  “ How 
“ to  obey  or  disobey,”  thus  addresses  those  among  the  reformers, 
who,  “ to  please  the  wicked  Jezebel,”  had  fought  on  that  day  ; “ Is 
“ this  the  love  that  ye  bear  to  the  word  of  God,  0 ye  Gospellers  ? 
“ Have  ye  been  so  taught  in  the  gospel,  to  be  wilful  murtherers  of 
“ yourselves  and  others  abroad,  rather  than  lawful  defenders  of  God’s 
“ people  and  your  country  at  home  ?” — Apud  Strype,  iii.  441. 


MARY  AND  THE  POPE. 


515 


to  batter  the  castle  of  Wark,  the  Scots,  instead  of  chap. 

vi. 

fighting,  assembled  in  council  at  Ecford  church,  where  a.d.  1587. 
they  reminded  each  other  of  the  fatal  field  of  Flodden, 
and  exaggerated  the  loss  of  their  ally  at  the  battle  of 
St.  Quintin.  The  earl  of  Shrewsbury  lay  before  them 
with  the  whole  power  of  England  ; why  should  the 
Scots  shed  their  blood  for  an  interest  entirely  French ; 
why  hazard  the  best  hopes  of  the  country  without  any 
adequate  cause  ? The  earl  of  Huntley  alone  ventured 
to  oppose  the  general  sentiment.  He  was  put  under 
a temporary  arrest ; and,  in  defiance  of  the  threats,  the 
tears,  and  the  entreaties  of  the  regent,  the  army  was 
disbanded.  <e  Thus/’  says  Lord  Shrewsbury,  “ this  Oct.  18. 
“enterprise,  begun  with  so  great  bravery,  ended  in 
“ dishonour  and  shame.”  1 It  produced,  however,  this 
benefit  to  France,  that  it  distracted  the  attention  of 
the  English  council,  and  added  considerably  to  the 
expenses  of  the  war. 

At  the  same  time,  the  queen,  to  her  surprise  and 
vexation,  found  herself  involved  in  a contest  with  the 
pontiff.  Though  Pole,  in  former  times,  had  suffered 
much  for  his  attachment  to  the  Catholic  creed,  the 
cardinal  Caraffa  had,  on  one  occasion,  ventured  to 
express  a doubt  with  respect  to  his  orthodoxy.  That 
this  suspicion  was  unfounded,  Caraffa  subsequently 
acknowledged  ;2  and  after  his  elevation  to  the  pope- 
dom, he  had  repeatedly  pronounced  a high  eulogium 
on  the  English  cardinal.  Now,  however,  whether  it 
was  owing  to  the  moderation  of  Pole,  which,  to  the 
pope’s  more  ardent  zeal,  appeared  like  a dereliction  of 
duty,  or  to  the  suggestions  of  those  who  sought  to 

1 See  the  long  correspondence  on  the  subject  of  this  intended  in- 
vasion in  Lodge,  i.  240 — 293. 

2 Pol.  Ep.  iv.  91  ; v.  122. 


516 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1557. 


May  21. 
May  25. 


June  14. 


widen  the  breach  between  Philip  and  the  Holy  See, 
Paul  reverted  to  the  suspicions  which  he  had  before 
abjured.  Though  he  wished  to  mask  his  real  inten- 
tion, he  resolved  to  involve  the  legate  in  the  same 
disgrace  with  his  friend  the  cardinal  Morone,  and  to 
subject  the  orthodoxy  of  both  to  the  investigation  of 
the  Inquisition.  It  chanced  that  Philip,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  war,  had  made  regulations  which  seemed 
to  trench  on  the  papal  authority ; and  Paul,  to  mark 
his  sense  of  these  encroachments,  recalled  his  minis- 
ters from  all  the  dominions  of  that  monarch.  There 
was  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Pole  was  included  in 
this  revocation ; but  the  pontiff  ordered  a letter  to 
be  prepared,  announcing  to  him  that  his  legatine 
authority  was  at  an  end,  and  ordering  him  to  hasten 
immediately  to  Pome.  Carne,  the  queen’s  agent, 
informed  her  by  express  of  the  pope’s  intention,  and 
in  the  meantime,  by  his  remonstrances,  extorted  an 
illusory  promise  of  delay.  Philip  and  Mary  expostu- 
lated ; the  English  prelates  and  nobility,  in  separate 
letters,  complained  of  the  injury  which  religion  would 
receive  from  the  measure ; and  Pole  himself  repre- 
sented that  the  control  of  a legate  was  necessary, 
though  it  mattered  little  whether  that  office  was  exer- 
cised by  himself  or  another.1  This  expression  sug- 
gested a new  expedient.  Peyto,  a Franciscan  friar, 
eighty  years  of  age,  was  the  queens  confessor  : him 
the  pope,  in  a secret  consistory,  created  a cardinal  ; 

1 These  letters  may  be  seen  in  Pole’s  Ep.  v.  27  ; Strype,  iii.  Rec 
231  ; Bnrnet,  ii.  315.  In  them  great  complaint  is  made  that  the 
pope  should  deprive  the  cardinal  of  the  authority  of  legate,  which 
for  centuries  had  been  annexed  to  the  office  of  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury. It  would  appear  that  this  was  a mistake ; for  soon  after- 
wards Pole,  though  he  no  longer  styled  himself  legatus  a latere, 
assumed  the  title  of  legatus  natus,  and  kept  it  till  his  death. — Wilk. 
iv.  149,  153,  1 7 1.  Pol.  Ep.  v.  181. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  POLE.  517 

and  immediately  transferred  to  him  all  the  powers 
which  had  hitherto  been  exercised  by  Pole.1  In  this 
emergency,  Mary’s  respect  for  the  papal  authority  did 
not  prevent  her  from  having  recourse  to  the  precau- 
tions which  had  often  been  employed  by  her  prede- 
cessors. Orders  were  issued  that  every  messenger 
from  foreign  parts  should  be  detained  and  searched. 
The  bearer  of  the  papal  letters  was  arrested  at  Calais  ; 
his  despatches  were  clandestinely  forwarded  to  the 
queen ; and  the  letters  of  revocation  were  either 
secreted  or  destroyed.  Thus  it  happened  that  Peyto 
never  received  any  official  notice  of  his  preferment, 
nor  Pole  of  his  recall.  The  latter,  however,  ceased  to 
exercise  the  legatine  authority,  and  despatched  Orma- 
netto,  his  chancellor,  to  Rome.  That  messenger  ar- 
rived at  a most  favourable  moment.  The  papal  army 
had  been  defeated  at  Palliano ; the  news  of  the  victory 
at  St.  Quintin  had  arrived ; and  peace  was  signed 
between  Paul  and  Philip.  In  these  circumstances, 
the  pontiff  treated  Ormanetto  with  kindness,  and 
referred  the  determination  of  the  question  to  his 
nephew,  the  cardinal  Caraffa,  whom  he  had  appointed 
legate  to  the  king.2  When  that  minister  reached 
Brussels,  he  demanded  that  both  Pole  and  Peyto 
should  be  suffered  to  proceed  to  Rome  ; Pole,  that 
he  might  clear  himself  from  the  charge  of  heresy, 
Peyto,  that  he  might  aid  the  pontiff  with  his  advice. 
Philip  referred  him  to  Mary,  and  Mary  returned  a 
refusal.3  At  Rome  proceedings  against  the  English 

1 Pol.  Ep.  v.  144,  ex  actis  consistorialibus.  Paul  says  that  he  had 
known  Peyto  when  he  was  in  the  family  of  Pole  ; that  from  the  first 
he  had  determined  to  make  him  a cardinal ; and  that  he  considered 
him  worthy  of  the  honour,  both  from  his  own  knowledge  and  the 
testimony  of  others. — Ibid. 

2 Beccatello,  380.  3 Pallavicino,  ii.  500,  502. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1557. 
June  20. 


July  20. 
Sept.  14. 


Sept.  24. 
Dec.  13. 


518 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VL 

A.D.  1558. 

March  30. 
April. 


Jan.  1. 


cardinal  were  already  commenced ; but  Pole,  in  strong, 
though  respectful  language,  remonstrated  against  the 
injustice  which  was  done  to  his  character  f Peyto 
soon  afterwards  died ; and  the  question  remained  in 
suspense,  till  it  was  set  at  rest  in  the  course  of  a few 
months  by  the  deaths  of  all  the  parties  concerned. 

The  disgrace  which  had  befallen  the  French  arms 
at  St.  Quintin  had  induced  Henry  to  recall  the  duke 
of  Guise  from  Italy,  and  to  consult  him  on  the  means 
by  which  he  might  restore  his  reputation,  and  take 
revenge  for  his  loss.  The  reader  has  seen  that  he 
had  formerly  attempted,  through  the  agency  of  the 
exiles,  to  debauch  the  fidelity  of  some  among  the  in- 
habitants, or  the  troops  in  garrison,  at  Calais.  There 
is  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  at  present  his  secret 
partisans  within  the  town ; but,  however  that  may  be, 
the  representations  of  the  bishop  of  Acqs  and  of  the 
governor  of  Boulogne  had  taught  him  to  form  a more 
correct  notion  of  its  imaginary  strength ; and  the 
duke  of  Guise  adopted  a plan  originally  suggested  by 
the  admiral  Coligni,  to  assault  the  fortress  in  the 
middle  of  winter,  when,  from  the  depth  of  the  water 
in  the  marshes,  and  the  severity  of  the  weather,  it 
appeared  less  exposed  to  danger.  In  the  month  of 
December,  twenty-five  thousand  men,  with  a numerous 
train  of  battering  artillery,  assembled  at  Compiegne. 
Every  eye  was  turned  towards  St.  Quintin.  But 
suddenly  the  army  broke  up,  took  the  direction  of 
Calais,  and  on  Hew  Year’s  Day  was  discovered  in  con- 
siderable force  on  the  road  from  Sandgate  to  Hammes. 
The  governor,  Lord  Wentworth,  had  received  repeated 
warnings  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  the  place,  but 


Pol.  Ep.  y.  31 — 36. 


LOSS  OF  CALAIS.  519 

lie  persuaded  himself  that  the  object  of  the  enemy 
was  not  conquest,  but  plunder.  The  next  day  the 
bulwarks  of  Froyton  and  Nesle  were  abandoned  by 
their  garrisons ; and  within  twenty-four  hours  the 
surrender  of  Newhaven  Bridge  and  of  the  Risbank 
brought  the  assailants  within  reach  of  the  town.  A 
battery  on  St.  Peter’s  Heath  played  on  the  wall ; 
another  opened  a wide  breach  in  the  castle ; and  the 
commander,  in  expectation  of  an  assault,  earnestly 
solicited  reinforcements.  Lord  Wentworth  was  ad- 
monished that  the  loss  of  the  town  must  infallibly 
follow  tlqat  of  the  castle ; but  he  rejected  the  appli- 
cation, ordered  the  garrison  to  be  withdrawn,  and 
appointed  an  engineer  to  blow  up  the  towers  on  the 
approach  of  the  enemy.  That  same  evening,  during 
the  ebb  tide,  a company  of  Frenchmen  waded  across 
the  haven  ; no  explosion  took  place  ; and  the  French 
standard  was  unfurled  on  the  walls.1  The  next  morn- 
ing an  offer  of  capitulation  was  made  ; and  the  town, 
with  all  the  ammunition  and  merchandise,  was  surren- 
dered, on  condition  that  the  citizens  and  garrison 
should  have  liberty  to  depart,  with  the  exception  of 
Wentworth  himself  and  of  fifty  others.  Ample  supplies 
of  men  and  stores  had  been  provided  by  the  council ; 
but  they  were  detained  at  Dover  by  the  tempestuous 
state  of  the  weather ; and  no  man  apprehended  that 
a place  of  such  reputed  strength  could  be  lost  in  the 
space  of  a single  week.  From  Calais,  the  duke  led 
his  army  to  the  siege  of  Guisnes.  A breach  was 
made ; the  assailants  were  gallantly  repulsed  ; but  this 
success  was  purchased  with  the  lives  of  so  many  men, 

1 In  excuse  of  Saul,  the  engineer,  who  was  charged  to  blow  up 
the  towers,  it  has  been  pretended  that  the  water,  dropping  from  the 
clothes  of  the  Frenchmen,  as  they  passed  over  the  train,  wet  the 
powder,  and  prevented  it  from  exploding. — See  Holinshed,  1135. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 
Jan.  2. 

Jan.  3. 
Jan.  4. 

Jan.  6. 


Jan.  7. 

Jan. 8. 


Jan.  20. 


520 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


Jan.  22. 


that  Lord  Grey,  the  governor,  evacuated  the  town, 
and  two  days  later  surrendered  the  castle.1  Thus,  in 
the  depth  of  winter,  and  within  the  short  lapse  of 
three  weeks,  was  Calais,  with  all  its  dependencies,  re- 
covered by  France,  after  it  had  remained  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  English  more  than  two  hundred  years. 
On  whom  the  blame  should  be  laid  is  uncertain. 
Some  have  condemned  the  ministers,  who,  under  a 
mistaken  notion  of  economy,  had  allowed  it  to  he  un- 
provided for  a siege ; others,  and  not  without  apparent 
cause,  have  attributed  the  loss  to  disaffection  and 
treason.2 

To  men  who  weigh  the  trivial  advantages  which 
had  been  derived  from  the  possession  of  the  place 
against  the  annual  expenses  of  its  garrison  and  forti- 
fications, the  loss  appeared  in  the  light  of  a national 
benefit ; bufc  in  the  eyes  of  foreigners  it  tarnished  the 
reputation  of  the  country,  and  at  home  it  furnished  a 
subject  of  reproach  to  the  factious,  of  regret  to  the 
loyal.  The  queen  felt  it  most  poignantly ; and  we 
may  form  a notion  of  her  grief  from  the  declarations 
which  she  made  on  her  death-bed,  that,  if  her  ambas- 
sadors at  Cercamp  should  conclude  a peace  without 
procuring  the  restoration  of  Calais,  they  should  pay 
for  the  concession  with  their  heads ; and  that,  if  her 
breast  were  opened  after  death,  the  word  “Calais” 
would  be  found  engraven  on  her  heart.3  With  these 

1 Lord  Grey  was  given  as  a prisoner  to  Strozzi,  who  sold  him  to 
the  count  of  Rochefoucaut  for  8,000  crowns  (Brantome,  art.  Strozzi). 
Rochefoucaut  demanded  and  received  of  Grey  25,000,  which  served 
to  pay  the  greater  part  of  his  own  ransom  of  30,000  to  his  captor  at 
the  battle  of  St.  Quintin. — Mergez,  48. 

2 There  is  a long  account  of  the  siege  of  Calais  in  Thuanus,  tom.  i. 
part  ii.  p.  679,  and  of  that  of  Guisnes,  in  Holinshed,  1137 — 1140  ; 
but  I have  adhered  to  the  official  correspondence  in  the  Hardwick 
Papers,  i.  103 — 120.  See  also  Cabrera,  Felipe  Segundo,  181,  183. 

3 Godwin,  134.  Gonzales,  from  the  original  documents  preserved 


GRIEF  OF  MARY  AND  THE  NATION. 


521 


feelings  she  met  her  parliament,  and  by  the  mouth  of 
her  chancellor  solicited  a liberal  supply.  The  spirit 
of  the  nation  had  been  roused,  and  all  men  appeared 
eager  to  revenge  the  loss.  The  clergy  granted  an  aid 
of  eight  shillings  in  the  pound,  the  laity  one  of  four 
shillings  in  the  pound  on  lands,  and  of  two  shillings 
and  eightpence  on  goods,  besides  a fifteenth  and  tenth 
to  be  paid  before  the  month  of  November.  Several 
bills,  against  the  natives  of  France,  but  savouring 
more  of  resentment  than  of  policy,  were  thrown  out 
by  the  moderation  of  the  ministers ; and  the  session 
closed  with  two  acts  for  the  better  defence  of  the 
realm,  of  which  one  regulated  the  musters  of  the 
militia,  the  other  fixed  the  proportion  of  arms,  armour, 
and  horses  to  be  provided  by  private  individuals.1 

Some  weeks  before  the  attempt  of  the  duke  of 
Cruise,  Philip  had  warned  the  council  of  his  design, 
and  had  offered  for  the  defence  of  Calais  a garrison  of 
Spanish  troops.  The  admonition  was  received  with 
distrust ; and  some  of  the  lords  hinted  a suspicion 
that,  under  the  colour  of  preserving  the  place  from 
the  French,  he  might  harbour  an  intention  of  keeping 
it  for  himself.  He  now  made  a second  proposal,  to 
join  any  number  of  Spaniards  to  an  equal  number  ol 
English,  and  to  undertake  the  recovery  of  the  town 
before  the  enemy  had  repaired  the  works.  Even  this 
offer  was  declined,  on  the  ground  that  a sufficient 
force  could  not  be  raised  within  the  appointed  time ; 
that  the  greater  part  of  the  ordnance  had  been  lost  at 
Calais  and  Guisnes ; that  raw  soldiers  would  not  be 

at  Simancas,  in  the  Memorias  de  la  real  Acadamia  de  la  Historia, 
vii.  257.  Madrid,  1832. 

1 Journals  of  Lords  and  Commons.  As  the  money  did  not  come 
into  the  exchequer  immediately,  the  queen  borrowed  20,000/.  of  the 
citizens,  at  an  interest  of  twelve  per  cent. — Stowe,  632, 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


Jan.  20. 


Feb.  1. 


522 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


July  13. 


able  to  bear  the  rigours  of  the  season;  and  that  it 
was  necessary  to  keep  up  a respectable  army  at  home, 
to  intimidate  the  factious,  and  to  repress  the  attempts 
of  the  outlaws.1  For  these  reasons  the  ministers  pre- 
ferred to  fortify  the  coast  of  Devon,  where  Dudley 
menaced  a descent,  and  to  prepare  an  armament  suffi- 
ciently powerful  to  surprise  some  port  on  the  French 
coast,  as  an  equivalent  for  that  which  had  been  lost. 
During  the  spring  seven  thousand  men  were  levied, 
and  trained  to  military  evolutions ; the  lord  admiral 
collected  in  the  harbour  of  Portsmouth  a fleet  of  one 
hundred  and  forty  sail ; and  Philip  willingly  supplied 
a strong  reinforcement  of  Flemish  troops.  In  France 
the  capture  of  Calais  had  excited  an  intoxication  of 
joy.  The  event  had  been  celebrated  by  the  nuptials 
of  the  dauphin  to  the  young  queen  of  Scotland ; but 
it  was  clouded  by  the  calamitous  defeat  of  the  marshal 
de  Termes.  He  was  actually  engaged  with  the  Spanish 
force  under  the  count  of  Egmont,  on  the  banks  of  the 
Aa,  when  the  report  of  the  cannon  attracted  the  Eng- 
lish admiral  Malin,  with  twelve  small  vessels,  to  the 
mouth  of  the  river.  Malin  entered  with  the  tide ; 
brought  his  ships  to  bear  on  the  enemy’s  line,  and, 
with  the  discharge  of  a few  broadsides,  threw  their 
right  wing  into  disorder.  The  victory  was  completed 
by  the  charge  of  the  Spaniards.  The  French  lost  five 
thousand  men ; and  De  Termes,  Senarpont,  governor 
of  Boulogne,  and  many  gallant  officers,  were  made 
prisoners.  To  Malin  the  count  proved  his  gratitude 
by  a present  of  two  hundred  captives,  that  he  might 
receive  the  profit  of  their  ransom.2 

In  the  action  on  the  banks  of  the  Aa,  the  greatest 

1 Their  letter  is  in  Strype,  iii.  439. 

2 Godwin,  132.  Stowe,  633. 


NAVAL  EXPEDITION. 


523 


can  be  little  doubt  that  by  an  immediate  and  vigorous  a.d.  1558. 
attack  the  town  itself  might  have  been  recovered. 

But  the  grand  expedition  had  previously  sailed  from 
Portsmouth,  and  had  already  reached  the  coast  of 
Bretagne.  Its  object  was  to  surprise  the  port  of 
Brest ; and  we  are  ignorant  why  the  lord  admiral, 
instead  of  proceeding  immediately  to  his  destination, 
amused  himself  with  making  a descent  in  the  vicinity 
of  Conquest.  He  burnt  the  town,  and  plundered  the 
adjacent  villages  ; but,  in  the  meantime,  the  alarm 
was  given ; troops  poured  from  all  quarters  into  Brest ; 
and  his  fears  or  his  prudence  induced  him  to  return 
to  England,  without  having  done  anything  to  raise 
the  reputation  of  the  country,  or  to  repay  the  expenses 
of  the  expedition.1 

After  this  failure  the  last  hope  of  the  ministers  was 
placed  in  the  honour  and  fidelity  of  Philip.  That 
prince  had  joined  his  army  of  forty-five  thousand  men 
in  the  vicinity  of  Dourlens  ; and  Henry  lay  with  a 
force  scarcely  inferior  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Amiens. 

Instead,  however,  of  a battle,  conferences  were  opened  August, 
in  the  abbey  of  Cercamp,  and  both  parties  professed 
to  be  animated  with  a sincere  desire  of  peace.  It 
was  evident  that,  if  the  king  should  yield  to  the  de- 
mands of  France,  Calais  was  irretrievably  lost.  But 
Philip  was  conscious  that  he  had  led  the  queen  into 
the  war,  and  deemed  himself  bound  in  honour  to 
watch  no  less  over  her  interests  than  over  his  own. 

He  resisted  the  most  tempting  offers ; he  declared 
that  the  restoration  of  Calais  must  be  an  indispens- 
able condition;  and,  at  last,  in  despair  of  subduing 


1 Stowe,  633. 


524 


MARY. 


chap,  the  obstinacy  of  Henry,  put  an  end  to  the  negotia- 
a.d.  1558.  tion.1 

But  the  reign  of  Mary  was  now  hastening  to  its 
termination.  Her  health  had  always  been  delicate ; 
from  the  time  of  her  first  supposed  pregnancy  she  was 
afflicted  with  frequent  and  obstinate  maladies.  Tears 
no  longer  afforded  her  relief  from  the  depression  of 
her  spirits ; and  the  repeated  loss  of  blood,  by  the 
advice  of  her  physicians,  had  rendered  her  pale,  lan- 
guid, and  emaciated.2  Nor  was  her  mind  more  at 
ease  than  her  body.  The  exiles  from  Geneva,  by  the 
number  and  virulence  of  their  libels,  kept  her  in  a 
constant  state  of  fear  and  irritation  ;3  and  to  other 
causes  of  anxiety,  which  have  been  formerly  men- 
tioned, had  lately  been  added  the  insalubrity  of  the 
season,  the  loss  of  Calais,  and  her  contest  with  the 
pontiff.  In  August  she  experienced  a slight  febrile 
indisposition  at  Hampton  Court,  and  immediately 
removed  to  St.  James’s.  It  was  soon  ascertained 
that  her  disease  was  the  same  fever  which  had  proved 
fatal  to  thousands  of  her  subjects ; and,  though  she 
languished  for  three  months,  with  several  alternations 
of  improvement  and  relapse,  she  never  recovered  suffi- 
ciently to  leave  her  chamber. 

During  this  long  confinement,  Mary  edified  all 
around  her  by  her  cheerfulness,  her  piety,  and  her 
resignation  to  the  will  of  Providence.  Her  chief 

1 See  the  official  correspondence  in  Burnet,  iii.  258 — 263. 

2 Memoir  of  the  Venetian  Ambassador,  fol.  157. 

3 These  libels  provoked  the  government  to  issue,  on  the  6th  of 
June,  a proclamation,  stating  that  books  tilled  with  heresy,  sedition, 
and  treason,  were  daily  brought  from  beyond  the  seas,  and  some 
covertly  printed  within  the  realm,  and  ordering  that  “ whosoever 
“ should  be  found  to  have  any  of  the  said  wicked  and  seditious  books 
“ should  be  reputed  a rebel,  and  executed  according  to  martial  law.” 
— Strype,  iii.  459. 


DEATH  OF  THE  QUEEN. 


525 


solicitude  was  for  the  stability  of  that  church  which  chap. 
she  had  restored ; and  her  suspicions  of  Elizabeth’s  a.d.  1558. 
insincerity  prompted  her  to  require  from  her  sister  an 
avowal  of  her  real  sentiments.  In  return,  Elizabeth 
complained  of  Mary’s  incredulity.  She  was  a true 
and  conscientious  believer  in  the  Catholic  creed ; nor 
could  she  do  more  now  than  she  had  repeatedly  done 
before,  which  was  to  confirm  her  assertion  with  her 
oath.1 

On  the  fifth  of  November,  the  day  fixed  at  the  Nov-  s- 
prorogation,  the  parliament  assembled  at  Westmin- 
ster. The  ministers,  in  the  name  of  the  queen,  de- 
manded a supply ; but  little  progress  was  made,  under 
the  persuasion  that  she  had  but  a short  time  to  live. 

Eour  days  later  the  Conde  de  Feria  arrived,  the  Nov.  9. 
bearer  of  a letter  to  Mary  from  her  husband.  It  was 
an  office  which  decency,  if  not  affection,  required ; but 
Philip  had  the  ingenuity  to  turn  it  to  his  own  account, 
by  instructing  the  ambassador  to  secure  for  him  the 
good  will  of  the  heir  to  the  crown.  Though  the 
queen  had  already  declared  Elizabeth  her  successor, 

Feria  advocated  her  claim  in  a set  speech  before  the 
council ; and  then,  in  an  interview  with  the  princess  Hov.  10. 
at  the  house  of  Lord  Clinton,  assured  her  that  the 
declaration  of  the  queen  in  her  favour  had  originated 
with  his  master.  A few  days  later,  Mary  ordered  Jane 
Dormer,  one  of  her  maids  of  honour,  and  afterwards 
duchess  of  Feria,  to  deliver  to  Elizabeth  the  jewels 
in  her  custody,  and  to  make  to  the  princess  three 
requests  : that  she  would  be  good  to  her  servants, 
would  repay  the  sums  of  money  which  had  been  lent 

1 MS.  Life  of  the  Duchess  of  Feria,  156.  “ She  prayed  God  that 

“ the  earth  might  open  and  swallow  her  up  alive,  if  she  were  not  a 
“ true  Roman  Catholic.” — Ibid.  129.  See  also  Paterson’s  Image  of 
the  Two  Churches,  435. 


526 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


Hov.  17. 


Hov.  18. 


on  privy  seals,  and  would  support  tbe  established 
church.  On  the  morning  of  her  death  mass  was  cele- 
brated in  her  chamber.  She  was  perfectly  sensible, 
and  expired  a few  minutes  before  the  conclusion.1 
Her  friend  and  kinsman,  Cardinal  Pole,  who  had  long 
been  confined  with  a fever,  survived  her  only  twenty- 
two  hours.  He  had  reached  his  fifty -ninth,  she  her 
forty-second  year.2 

The  foulest  blot  on  the  character  of  this  queen  is 
her  long  and  cruel  persecution  of  the  reformers.  The 
sufferings  of  the  victims  naturally  begat  an  antipathy 
to  the  woman  by  whose  authority  they  were  inflicted. 
It  is,  however,  but  fair  to  recollect  what  I have  already 
noticed,  that  the  extirpation  of  erroneous  doctrine  was 
inculcated  as  a duty  by  the  leaders  of  every  religious 
party.  Mary  only  practised  what  they  taught.  It 
was  her  misfortune,  rather  than  her  fault,  that  she 
was  not  more  enlightened  than  the  wisest  of  her  con- 
temporaries. 

With  this  exception  she  has  been  ranked,  by  the 
more  moderate  of  the  reformed  writers,  among  the 
best,  though  not  the  greatest,  of  our  princes.  They 

1 MS.  Life  of  the  Duchess  of  Feria,  128.  Even  the  merit  of 
sending  the  jewels  was  claimed  for  Philip  ; who  moreover  added  a 
present  of  his  own,  a valuable  casket  which  he  had  left  at  Whitehall, 
and  which  he  knew  that  Elizabeth  greatly  admired. — Memorias,  vii. 
260. 

3 Elizabeth,  in  her  conference  with  Feria  on  the  10th,  spoke  with 
great  asperity  (malissamente)  of  the  cardinal.  He  had  paid  her  no 
attention,  and  had  been  to  her  the  occasion  of  great  annoyance. — 
Ibid.  255,257.  Pole  appears  to  have  been  aware  of  her  displeasure ; 
for  he  sent  from  his  death-bed  the  dean  of  Worcester  with  a letter 
to  her,  requesting  her  to  give  credit  to  what  the  dean  had  “ to  say 
“ in  his  behalf,”  and  doubting  not  that  she  would  “ remain  satisfied 
“thereby.” — Hearne’s  Sylloge,  157.  Collier,  Records,  88.  The 
moment  his  death  was  known,  she  sent  the  earl  of  Rutland  and 
Throckmorton  to  seize  his  effects  for  the  crown. — Memorias,  257, 

259* 


MARY'S  CHARACTER  AND  ABILITIES.  527 

have  borne  honourable  testimony  to  her  virtues  ; have  chap. 
allotted  to  her  the  praise  of  piety  and  clemency,  of  a.d.  1558. 
compassion  for  the  poor,  and  liberality  to  the  dis- 
tressed ; and  have  recorded  her  solicitude  to  restore 
to  opulence  the  families  that  had  been  unjustly  de- 
prived of  their  possessions  by  her  father  and  brother, 
and  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  parochial  clergy, 
who  had  been  reduced  to  penury  by  the  spoliations  of 
the  last  government.1  It  is  acknowledged  that  her 
moral  character  was  beyond  reproof.  It  extorted 
respect  from  all,  even  from  the  most  virulent  of  her 
enemies.  The  ladies  of  her  household  copied  the 
conduct  of  their  mistress ; and  the  decency  of  Mary’s 
court  was  often  mentioned  with  applause  by  those 
who  lamented  the  dissoluteness  which  prevailed  in 
that  of  her  successor.2 

The  queen  was  thought  by  some  to  have  inherited 
the  obstinacy  of  her  father  ; but  there  was  this  differ- 
ence, that,  before  she  formed  her  decisions,  she  sought 
for  advice  and  information,  and  made  it  an  invariable 
rule  to  prefer  right  to  expediency.  One  of  the  out- 
laws, who  had  obtained  his  pardon,  hoped  to  ingratiate 
himself  with  Mary  by  devising  a plan  to  render  her 
independent  of  parliament.  He  submitted  it  to  the 
inspection  of  the  Spanish  ambassador,  by  whom  it 
was  recommended  to  her  consideration.  Sending  for 


1 Princeps  apud  omnes  ob  mores  sanctissimos,  pietatem  in  pau 
peres,  liberalitatem  in  nobiles  atque  ecclesiasticos  nunquam  satis 
laudata. — Camden  in  Apparat.  23.  Mulier  sanepia,  clemens,  mori- 
busque  castissimis,  et  usquequaque  laudanda,  si  religionis  errorem 
non  spectes. — Godwin,  123. 

2 MS.  Life  of  the  Duchess  of  Feria,  114.  Faunt,  Walsingham’s 
secretary,  says  of  Elizabeth’s  court,  that  it  was  a place  “ where  all 
“enormities  were  practised;  where  sin  reigned  in  the  highest 
“ degree.” — Aug.  6,  1583.  Birch,  i.  39. 


528 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


Gardiner,  slie  bade  him  peruse  it,  and  then  adjured 
him,  as  he  should  answer  at  the  judgment-seat  of  God, 
to  speak  his  real  sentiments.  “ Madam,”  replied  the 
prelate,  “ it  is  a pity  that  so  virtuous  a lady  should 
“ be  surrounded  by  such  sycophants.  The  book  is 
“naught  : it  is  filled  with  things  too  horrible  to  be 
“ thought  of.”  She  thanked  him,  and  threw  the  paper 
into  the  fire.1 

Her  natural  abilities  had  been  improved  by  educa- 
tion. She  understood  the  Italian,  she  spoke  the 
Trench  and  Spanish  languages ; and  the  ease  and 
correctness  with  which  she  replied  to  the  foreigners, 
who  addressed  her  in  Latin,  excited  their  admiration.2 
Her  speeches  in  public,  and  from  the  throne,  were 
delivered  with  grace  and  fluency ; and  her  conferences 
with  Noailles,  as  related  in  his  despatches,  show  her  to 
have  possessed  an  acute  and  vigorous  mind,  and  to 
have  been  on  most  subjects  a match  for  that  subtle 
and  intriguing  negotiator. 

It  had  been  the  custom  of  her  predecessors  to  devote 
the  summer  months  to  “progresses”  through  different 
counties.  But  these  journeys  produced  considerable 
injury  and  inconvenience  to  the  farmers,  who  were 
not  only  compelled  to  furnish  provisions  to  the  pur- 
veyors at  inadequate  prices,  but  were  withdrawn  from 
the  labours  of  the  harvest  to  aid  with  their  horses 

1 This  anecdote  is  told  by  Persons  in  one  of  his  tracts,  and  by 
Burnet,  ii.  278. 

2 Nella  latina  faria  stupir  ognuno  conlerisposte  cheda. — Michele’s 
Report,  MSS.  Barber.  1208.  He  adds,  that  she  was  fond  of  music 
and  excelled  on  the  monochord  and  the  lute,  two  fashionable  instru- 
ments at  that  time.  English  writers  also  praise  her  proficiency  in 
the  Latin  language.  She  had  translated  for  publication  the  para- 
phrase of  Erasmus  on  the  gospel  of  St.  John. — Warton’s  Sir  Thomas 
p°pe,  57- 


INCREASE  OF  COLLEGES. 


529 


and  waggons  in  the  frequent  removals  of  the  court,  chap. 
and  of  the  multitude  which  accompanied  it.  Mary,  a.d.  1558. 
through  consideration  for  the  interests  and  comforts 
of  the  husbandman,  refused  herself  this  pleasure  ; and 
generally  confined  her  excursions  to  Croydon,  a manor 
belonging  to  the  church  of  Canterbury.  There  it 
formed  her  chief  amusement  to  walk  out  in  the  com- 
pany of  her  maids,  without  any  distinction  of  dress, 
and  in  this  disguise  to  visit  the  houses  of  the  neigh- 
bouring poor.  She  inquired  into  their  circumstances, 
relieved  their  wants,  spoke  in  their  favour  to  her 
officers,  and  often,  where  the  family  was  numerous, 
apprenticed,  at  her  own  expense,  such  of  the  children 
as  appeared  of  promising  dispositions.1 

During  her  reign,  short  as  it  was,  and  disturbed  by 
repeated  insurrections,  much  attention  was  paid  to  the 
interests  of  the  two  universities,  not  only  by  the 
queen  herself,  who  restored  to  them  that  portion  of 
their  revenues  which  had  devolved  on  the  crown,  but 
also  by  individuals,  who  devoted  their  private  fortunes 
to  the  advancement  of  learning.  At  a time  when  the 
rage  for  polemic  disputation  had  almost  expelled  the 
study  of  classic  literature  from  the  schools,  Sir  Thomas 
Pope  founded  Trinity  College,  in  Oxford,  and  made  it 
a particular  regulation,  that  its  inmates  should  acquire 
a just  relish  for  the  graces  and  purity  of  the  Latin 
“tongue.”  About  three  years  later,  Sir  Thomas 
White  established  St.  John’s,  on  the  site  of  Bernard’s 
College,  the  foundation  of  Archbishop  Chicheley ; and 
at  the  same  time,  the  celebrated  Dr.  Caius,  at  Cam- 
bridge, made  so  considerable  an  addition  to  Gronvil 
Hall,  and  endowed  it  with  so  many  advowsons,  manors, 

1 MS.  Life  of  the  Duchess  of  Feria,  p.  120. 

VOL.  V.  2 M 


530 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A..D.  1558. 


and  demesnes,  that  it  now  bears  his  name,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  that  of  the  original  founder. 

Though  her  parliaments  were  convoked  for  tem- 
porary purposes,  they  made  several  salutary  enact- 
ments, respecting  the  offence  of  treason,  the  office 
of  sheriff,  the  powers  of  magistrates,  the  relief  of  the 
poor,  and  the  practice  of  the  courts  of  law.1  The 
merit  of  these  may  probably  be  due  to  her  council ; 
but  of  her  own  solicitude  for  the  equal  administration 
of  justice,  we  have  a convincing  proof.  It  had  long 
been  complained  that  in  suits,  to  which  the  crown 
was  a party,  the  subject,  whatever  were  his  right, 
had  no  probability  of  a favourable  decision,  on  account 
of  the  superior  advantages  claimed  and  enjoyed  by  the 
council  for  the  sovereign.  When  Mary  appointed 
Morgan  chief  justice  of  the  court  of  Common  Pleas, 
she  took  the  opportunity  to  express  her  disapprobation 
of  this  grievance.  “ I charge  you,  sir,”  said  she,  “ to 
“ minister  the  law  and  justice  indifferently,  without 
“ respect  of  person ; and,  notwithstanding  the  old 
“ error  among  you,  which  will  not  admit  any  witness 
“ to  speak,  or  other  matter  to  be  heard,  in  favour  of 
“ the  adversary,  the  crown  being  a party,  it  is  my 
“ pleasure,  that  whatever  can  be  brought  in  favour 
“ of  the  subject  may  be  admitted  and  heard.  You 

1 On  the  subject  of  taxation,  the  Venetian  ambassador  has  the 
following  passage.  u The  liberty  of  this  country  is  really  singular 
“ and  wonderful ; indeed  there  is  no  other  country  in  my  opinion  less 
“ burthened,  and  more  free.  For  they  have  not  only  no  taxes  of 
“ any  kind,  but  they  are  not  even  thought  of  : no  tax  on  salt,  wine, 

“ beer,  flour,  meat,  cloth,  and  the  other  necessaries  of  life 

“Here  every  one  indifferently,  whether  noble  or  of  the  common 
u people,  is  in  the  free  and  unmolested  enjoyment  of  all  he  possesses, 
“ or  daily  acquires,  relating  either  to  food  or  raiment,  to  buying  or 
“ selling,  except  in  those  articles  which  he  imports  or  exports  in  the 
“ way  of  trafAck.” — See  the  translation  by  Mr.  Ellis,  ii.  234. 


ATTENTION  TO  COMMERCE. 


531 


'“  are  to  sit  there,  not  as  advocates  for  me,  but  as  chap. 

vi. 

“ indifferent  judges  between  me  and  my  people.”1  a.d.  1558. 

Neither  were  the  interests  of  trade  neglected  during 
her  government.  She  had  the  honour  of  concluding 
the  first  commercial  treaty  with  Eussia.  Edward  died 
long  before  Challoner  returned  from  Archangel;2 
but  the  letter  which  he  brought  was  delivered  to  the 
queen,  and  the  report  of  the  wonders  which  he  had 
seen  excited  an  extraordinary  spirit  of  enterprise 
throughout  the  nation.  A new  company  was  formed 
with  the  same  Sebastian  Cabote  for  its  director,  and  I55S 
was  incorporated  by  Philip  and  Mary  under  the  title  Feb- 26 
of  “ Merchauntes  Adventurers  of  Englande  for  the 
“ Discoveryes  of  Lands,  Territories,  Isles,  and  Signories 
“unknown.”  The  list  of  shareholders  exhibits  the 
names  of  the  lord  high  treasurer,  and  all  the  high 
officers  of  state,  of  all  the  officers  of  the  household,  of 
lords,  knights,  barristers,  and  individuals  of  every 
rank,  with  the  exception  of  clergymen  and  the  judges. 

By  their  charter  they  were  empowered  to  discover 
unknown  countries  by  sailing  te  northwards,  northwest- 
“ wards,  or  northeastwards,  to  erect  the  banners  of 
“England  thereon,  to  subdue  ail  maner  of  cities, 
“townes,  isles,  and  mayne  lands  of  infidelity”  so 
discovered,  and  to  acquire  the  dominion  thereof  for 
the  king  and  queen,  and  their  heirs  and  successors  for 
over.  Moreover,  the  trade  with  Eussia,  and  all  the 
countries  which  might  be  discovered  in  virtue  of  this 
charter,  was  granted  to  the  company  exclusively,  and 
the  intruder,  if  he  were  an  English  subject,  was  made 
liable  to  fine  and  forfeiture  ; if  he  were  an  alien,  they 

1 State  Trials,  i.  72. 


2 M 2 


2 See  p.  366. 


532 


MARY. 


chap,  were  authorized  to  resist  him  as  an  open  enemy. 
a.d.  1555.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  Russian  Company.1 
A~  Challoner  was  now  sent  back  with  a letter  to  the 

April  1. 

czar.  Sailing  up  the  Hwina,  he  traversed  the  country 
July  20.  to  Moscow,  obtained  from  that  prince  the  most  flatter- 
ing promises,  and  returned  with  Osep  Napea  Gregori- 
Nov.  10.  vitch,  as  ambassador  to  Mary.  They  reached  the  bay 
of  Pettisligo  in  the  north  of  Scotland ; but  during  the 
night  the  ship  was  driven  from  her  anchors  upon  the 
rocks.  Challoner  perished ; the  ambassador  saved 
his  life  ; but  his  property,  and  the  presents  for  the 
queen,  were  carried  off  by  the  natives,  who  plundered 
the  wreck.  Mary  sent  two  messengers  to  Edinburgh 
to  supply  his  wants,  and  to  complain  of  the  detention 
of  his  effects.2  No  redress  could  be  obtained ; but  she 
made  every  effort  to  console  him  for  his  loss.  On  the 
borders  of  each  county  the  sheriffs  received  him  in 
state ; he  was  met  in  the  neighbourhood  of  London 
by  Lord  Montague  with  three  hundred  horse  ; and 
during  his  stay  in  the  capital  the  king  and  queen,  the 
lord  mayor,  and  the  company,  treated  him  with  ex- 
traordinary distinction.  He  appeared,  however,  to 
mistrust  these  demonstrations  of  kindness  ; and  it  was 
not  without  difficulty  that  he  was  brought  to  accede 
to  many  of  the  demands  of  the  merchants.  At  length 
a treaty  was  concluded  by  the  address  of  the  bishop  of 
May  1.  Ely  and  Sir  William  Petre  ; and  Napea  was  sent  back 

1 See  charter  of  incorporation  in  the  Transcripts  for  the  new 
Rymer,  p.  350. 

2 Lord  Wharton,  in  a letter  from  Berwick  of  February  28th,  says, 
“ A great  nomber  in  that  realme  ar  sorye  that  they  suffered  the  im- 
“ bassador  of  Russea  to  departe  owte  of  the  same ; he  may  thanke 
u God  that  he  escaped  from  their  crewell  covetouse  with  his  lief.” — 
Lodge,  i.  224. 


ENGLISH  TRADE  PROTECTED. 


533 


to  his  own  country,  loaded  with  presents  for  himself, 
and  still  more  valuable  gifts  for  his  sovereign.  The 
trade  fully  compensated  the  queen  and  the  nation  for 
these  efforts  and  expenses ; and  the  woollen  cloths 
and  coarse  linens  of  England  were  exchanged  at  an 
immense  profit  for  the  valuable  skins  and  furs  of  the 
northern  regions.1 

Mary  may  also  claim  the  merit  of  having  supported 
the  commercial  interests  of  the  country  against  the 
pretensions  of  a company  of  foreign  merchants,  which 
had  existed  for  centuries  in  London,  under  the 
different  denominations  of  Easterlings,  merchants  of 
the  Hanse  towns,  and  merchants  of  the  Steelyard. 
By  their  readiness  to  advance  loans  of  money  on 
sudden  emergencies,  they  had  purchased  the  most 
valuable  privileges  from  several  of  our  monarchs. 
They  formed  a corporation,  governed  by  its  own  laws  ; 
whatever  duties  were  exacted  from  others,  they  paid 
no  more  than  one  per  cent,  on  their  merchandise; 
they  were  at  the  same  time  buyers  and  sellers,  brokers 
and  carriers ; they  imported  jewels  and  bullion,  cloth 
of  gold  and  of  silver,  tapestry  and  wrought  silk,  arms, 
naval  stores,  and  household  furniture ; and  exported 


1 Legatorum  nemo  unquam  quisquam  (sicnt  autumo)  magnifi- 
eentius  apud  nostros  acceptus  est. — Godwin,  129.  The  presents 
which  he  received  for  himself  and  his  sovereign,  from  the  king  and 
queen,  are  enumerated  by  Stowe,  630.  Among  them  are  a lion 
and  lioness.  All  his  expenses,  from  his  arrival  in  Scotland  to  the 
day  on  which  he  left  England,  were  defrayed  by  the  merchants  I 
may  here  observe,  that  at  this  time,  according  to  the  report  of  the 
Venetian  ambassador,  there  were  many  merchants  in  London  worth 
fifty  or  sixty  thousand  pounds  each,  that  the  inhabitants  amounted 
to  180,000,  and  that  it  was  not  surpassed  in  wealth  by  any  city  in 
Europe.  Si  puo  dire  per  vero  que  puo  qualla  citta  senza  dubio 
star  a paragone  delle  piu  ricche  d’  Europa. — MSS.  Barber,  1208, 
P-  I37* 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A-D-  ISS7* 


534 


MARY. 


chap,  wool  and  woollen  cloths,  skins,  lead  and  tin,  cheese 
a.d.  1552.  and  beer,  and  Mediterranean  wines.  Their  privileges 
and  wealth  gave  them  a superiority  over  all  other 
merchants,  which  excluded  competition,  and  enabled 
them  to  raise  or  depress  the  prices  almost  at  pleasure. 
In  the  last  reign  the  public  feeling  against  them  had 
been  manifested  by  frequent  acts  of  violence,  and 
several  petitions  had  been  presented  to  the  council, 
complaining  of  the  injuries  suffered  by  the  English 
Feb.  24.  merchants.  After  a long  investigation  it  was  declared 
that  the  company  had  violated,  and  consequently  had 
forfeited,  its  charter ; but  by  dint  of  remonstrances,  of 
presents,  and  of  foreign  intercession,  it  obtained,  in  the 
July  8.  course  of  a few  weeks,  a royal  license  to  resume  the 
traffic  under  the  former  regulations.1  In  Mary’s  first 
parliament  a new  blow  was  aimed  at  its  privileges  ; 
and  it  was  enacted,  in  the  bill  of  tonnage  and  pound- 
age, that  the  Easterlings  should  pay  the  same  duties 
jan.^15,  as  other  foreign  merchants.  The  queen,  indeed,  was 
induced  to  suspend,  for  a while,  the  operation  of  the 
statute  ;2  but  she  soon  discerned  the  true  interest  of 

1555.  \ 

Jan.  2.  her  subjects,  revoked  the  privileges  of  the  company, 
and  refused  to  listen  to  the  arguments  adduced,  or  the 
intercession  made  in  its  favour.3  Elizabeth  followed 
the  policy  of  her  predecessor ; the  Steelyard  was  at 
length  shut  up ; and  the  Hanse  Towns,  after  a long 
and  expensive  suit,  yielded  to  necessity,  and  abandoned 
the  contest. 

Ireland,  during  this  reign,  offers  but  few  subjects  to 
attract  the  notice  of  the  reader.  The  officers  of 
government  were  careful  to  copy  the  proceedings  in 

1 Strype,  ii.  295,  296.  2 Rymer,  xv.  364,  365. 

3 Noailles,  iv.  137, 


IRELAND. 


535 


England.  They  first  proclaimed  the  lady  Jane,  and 
then  the  lady  Mary.  They  suffered  the  new  service 
to  fall  into  desuetude  ; Dowdall  resumed  the  arch- 
bishopric of  Armagh  ; the  married  prelates  and  clergy 
lost  their  benefices ; and  Bale,  the  celebrated  bishop 
of  Ossory,  who  had  often  endangered  his  life  by  his 
violence  and  fanaticism,  had  the  prudence  to  withdraw 
to  the  continent.  When  the  Irish  parliament  met,  it 
selected  most  of  its  enactments  from  the  English 
statute-book.  The  legitimacy  and  right  of  the  queen 
were  affirmed,  the  ancient  service  restored,  and  the 
papal  authority  acknowledged.1  But  though  the  laws 
against  heresy  were  revived,  they  were  not  carried  into 
execution.  The  number  of  the  reformers  proved  too 
small  to  excite  apprehension,  and  their  zeal  too  cau- 
tious to  offer  provocation. 

The  lord  deputy,  the  earl  of  Sussex,  distinguished 
himself  by  the  vigour  of  his  government.  He  re- 
covered from  the  native  Irish  the  two  districts  of 
Ofally  and  Leix,  which  he  moulded  into  counties,  and 
named  King’s  County  and  Queen’s  County,  in  honour 
of  Philip  and  Mary.  He  was  also  careful  to  define, 
by  a new  statute,  the  meaning  of  Poyning’s  act.  It 
provided  that  no  parliament  should  be  summoned,  till 
the  reasons  why  it  should  be  held,  and  the  bills  which 
it  was  intended  to  pass,  had  been  submitted  to  the 
consideration,  and  had  received  the  consent,  of  the 
sovereign ; and  that,  if  any  thing  occurred  during  the 
session  to  make  additional  enactments  necessary,  these 
should  in  the  same  manner  be  certified  to  the  king, 
and  be  approved  by  him,  before  they  were  laid  before 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1555. 


1 Irish  Stat.  3 & 4 Philip  and  Mary,  1,  2,  3,  4. 


536 


MARY. 


CHAP. 

VI. 

A.D.  1558. 


the  two  houses.  By  this  act  the  usage  was  deter- 
mined of  holding  parliaments  in  Ireland.1 

1 Mary’s  will  has  been  published  for  the  first  time  by  Sir  Fred. 
Madden,  in  his  “ Privy  Purse  Expenses  of  the  Princess  Mary,”  App. 
No.  iv.  She  states  that  she  made  her  will  being  in  good  health, 
“ but  foreseeing  the  great  dangers  which  by  Godd’s  ordynance  re- 
“ maine  to  all  women  in  ther  travel  of  children”  (30  March,  1558). 
Then  follow  several  bequests,  some  of  which  are  highly  honourable 
to  her  memory.  She  appears  to  have  intended  to  do  that  which  was 
not  accomplished  till  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  She  orders  her  exe- 
cutors to  provideahouse  in  London,  with  an  incomeof  theclear  yearly 
value  of  four  hundred  marks,  “ for  the  relefe,  succour,  and  helpe  of 
i(  pore,  impotent,  and  aged  soldiers,  and  chiefly  those  that  be  fallen 
“into  extreme  poverte,  having  no  pensyon  or  other  pretense  of 
“ ly  vyng,  or  are  become  hurt  or  maymd  in  the  warres  of  this  realm, 
u or  in  onny  service  for  the  defense  and  suerte  of  ther  prince,  and  of 
“ ther  countrey,  or  of  the  domynions  therunto  belonging”  (p.  cxci.). 
Some  months  later  (28  October,  1558),  when  she  no  longer  hoped 
for  issue  to  succeed  her,  she  added  a codicil  confirmatory  of  her 
former  will,  with  an  admonition  to  her  successor  to  fulfil  it  “ accord- 
61  ing  to  her  treue  mind  and  intente,  for  which  he  or  she  will,  no 
<£  doubt,  be  rewarded  of  God,  and  avoid  his  divine  justice  pronounced 
“ and  executed  against  such  as  be  violaters  and  breakers  of  wills 
“ and  testaments.”  It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  no  attention  was 
afterwards  paid  to  any  part  of  this  instrument. 


537 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A,  p.  io. 

It  is  singular  that  there  are  still  extant  two  copies  of  the  arch- 
bishop’s letter,  both  dated  on  the  same  day,  both  written  with  his 
own  hand,  both  folded  alike,  addressed  in  the  same  words  to  the 
king,  sealed  with  the  archbishop’s  seal,  and  bearing  marks  of  having 
been,  received  ; and  yet,  though  they  are  the  same  in  substance,  they 
differ  greatly  from  each  other  in  several  important  passages.  A 
careful  comparison  of  the  discrepancies  between  them  will,  however, 
disclose  the  whole  mystery.  It  will  show  that  the  first  letter  did 
not  satisfy  the  expectation  of  Henry.  It  was  not  conceived  in  lan- 
guage sufficiently  submissive;  it  did  not  fully  state  the  extent  of 
the  authority  solicited  by  the  primate  from  the  new  head  of  the 
church  ; nor  did  it  declare  that  the  motive  of  his  petition  was  solely 
the  exoneration  of  his  own  conscience.  It  was  as  follows  : — 

11  Please  yt  your  Hieghnes — that  wher  your  Grace’s  grete  cause 
u of  matrimony  is  (as  it  is  thought)  through  all  Christianytee 
a dyvulgated,  and  in  the  mowthes  of  the  rude  and  ignoraunte 
“ common  people  of  this  your  Graces  realme  so  talked  of,  that 
i(  feawe  of  them  do  feare  to  reporte  and  save,  that  thereof  ys  likly- 
“ hode  hereafter  to  ensue  grete  inconvenience,  daungier,  and  perill 
“ to  this  your  Graces  realme,  and  moche  incertentie  of  succession  ; 
11  by  whiche  things  the  saide  ignoraunte  people  be  not  a litle 
u offended  ; — and  forasmoche  as  yt  bathe  pleased  Almightie  God  and 
u your  Grace  of  your  habundant  goodnes  to  me  showed  to  call  me 
“ (albeyt  a poure  wretche  and  moche  unworthie)  unto  this  hiegh 
“ and  chargeable  office  of  primate  and  archebisshope  in  this  your 
u Graces  realme,  wherein  I beseche  Almightie  God  to  graunte  me 
u his  grace  so  to  use  and  demeane  myself,  as  may  be  standing  with 
u his  pleasure  and  the  discharge  of  my  conscience  and  to  the  weale 
4t  of  this  Your  Graces  saide  realme;  and  consy dering  also  the 
u obloquie  and  brute,  which  daylie  doith  spring  and  increase  of 
il  the  clergie  of  this  realme,  and  speciallie  of  the  heddes  and  presi- 
u dentes  of  the  same,  because  they,  in  this  behalve,  do  not  foresee  and 
ik  provide  suche  convenient  remedies  as  might  expell  and  put  out  of 
“ doubt  all  such  inconveniencies,  periiles  and  daungiers  as  the  saide 


538 


APPENDIX. 


“ rude  and  ignoraunte  people  do  speke  and  talk  to  be  ymmynent, 
“ I,  your  most  humble  Orator  and  Bedeman  am  in  consideration  of 
u the  premisses  urgently  constrained  at  this  time  most  humbly  to 
“ beseche  Your  most  noble  Grace  that,  (i)  when  my  office  and  duetie 
“ is,  by  Yours  and  Your  predecessours  sufferance  and  grauntes, 
“ (2)  to  directe  and  ordre  causes  spirituall  in  this  Your  Graces 
“ realme,  according  to  the  lawes  of  God  and  Holye  Churche,  (3) 
“ and  for  relief  of  almaner  greves  and  infirmities  of  the  people,  Goddes 
“ subject cs  and  Youres,  happening  in  thesaide  spiritual  causes , topro- 
“ vide  suche  remedie  as  shall  be  thought  most  convenient  for  their 
“ helpe  and  relief  in  that  behalf ; and  because  I wolde  be  right  lothe, 
“ and  also  it  shall  not  becom  me  (forasmoche  as  Your  Grace  ys  my 
fi  Prince  and  Sovereigne)  to  enterprize  any  parte  of  my  office  in  the 
“ saide  weightie  cause  (4)  without  Your  Graces  favour  obteigned 
“ and  pleasure  therein  first  knowen — it  may  please  the  same  to  as- 
“ certeyn  me  of  Your  Graces  pleasure  in  the  premisses,  to  thentent 
u that,  the  same  knowen,  I may  procede  for  my  discharge  afore 
“ God  to  th’execution  of  my  saide  office  and  duetie  according  to  his 
“ calling  and  Yours:  (5)  beseching  Your  Hieghness  moost  humbly 
“ uppon  my  kneys  to  pardon  me  of  this  my  bolde  and  rude  letters, 
“ and  the  same  to  accepte  and  take  in  good  sense  and  parte.  From 
“ my  manour  at  Lambith,  the  nth  day  of  Aprile,  in  the  first  yere 
11  of  my  consecration. 

“ Your  Highnes  most  humble 

u Bedisman  and  Chaplain, 

“ Thomas  Cantuar.” 

If  the  archbishop  thought  that  this  letter  was  sufficiently  compre- 
hensive and  submissive,  he  had  deceived  himself.  The  king  was 
dissatisfied  with  it  on  three  grounds  : — 1.  He  had  asked  to  know 
the  royal  pleasure.  Henry  meant  him  to  ask  the  royal  permission  or 
license.  2.  He  had  spoken  of  ordering  and  directing  spiritual  causes; 
Henry  insisted  on  having  his  cause  judged  and  finally  determined. 
3.  He  had  indeed  said  that  he  wished  to  perform  his  said  office  for 
his  discharge  afore  God ; but  Henry  required  something  more,  words 
which  would  exclude  all  idea  of  a previous  compact  between  them, 
and  would  enable  him  to  show  afterwards,  if  ever  there  were  need, 
that  the  whole  proceeding  originated  with  the  new  primate.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find,  that  in  the  second  copy  the  following  corrections 
have  been  made.  At  No.  1,  umy  office  and  duty”  is  changed  into 
“ the  office  and  duty  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.”  At  No.  2, 
after  “ to  direct  and  order  are  added  the  words  “ to  judge  and 
“ determynf  At  No  3,  the  whole  passage  in  italics  is  omitted.  At 
No.  4,  after  favour  “ license”  is  inserted,  and  “your  pleasure  first 
“ Jcnoiven , and  it  may  please  the  same  to  ascerteyn  me  of  your 
“ graces  pleasure,”  are  omitted.  Then  the  following  passage  is  sub- 
stituted. “It  may  please  therefore  your  most  excellent  majestie 
“(considerations  had  to  the  premisses,  and  to  my  moost  bounden 
“ duetie  towards  Your  Highnes,  your  realme,  succession,  and  pos- 


APPENDIX. 


539 


“ teritie,  and  for  the  exoneration  of  my  conscience  towardes  Al- 
“ mightie  God)  to  license  me  according  to  myn  office  and  duetie  to 
“ procede  to  the  examination,  fynall  determination , and  judgment  in 
u the  saide  grete  cause  touching  your  Heighnes.”  At  No.  5,  as 
if  the  archbishop  were  not  low  enough  u on  his  knees,”  he  is  made 
to  substitute  the  following  : — “ Eftsones,  as  prostrate  at  the  feet  of 
“ your  majestie,  beseching  the  same  to  pardon  me  of  thes  my  bolde 
“ and  rude  letters,  and  the  same  to  accept  and  take  in  good  sense 
“ and  parte,  as  I do  meane ; which,  calling  Our  horde  to  recorde , is 
“ onlie  for  the  zele  that  I have  to  the  causes  aforesaide , and  for  none 
“ other  intent  and  purpose.” — See  State  Papers,  390,  391. 

It  may  be  asked,  how  it  appears  that  what  I have  called  the 
second  and  corrected  letter,  was  in  reality  such.  I answer,  from 
the  license  granted  to  the  archbishop. — Ibid.  392.  That  license  is 
founded  on  the  second  letter,  and  not  on  the  first.  It  embodies  the 
second  with  all  its  corrections ; it  reminds  the  archbishop  of  the 
oath  with  which  that  letter  concludes,  and  of  his  “ calling  God  to 
“ his  recorde,”  of  his  only  intent  and  purpose  ; it  commends  that 
intent  and  purpose,  and  states  that  therefore  the  king,  inclining  to 
his  humble  petition,  doth  license  him  to  proceed  in  the  said  cause, 
to  the  examination  and  final  determination  of  the  same.  This  in- 
strument places  it  beyond  a doubt  that  the  first  petition  did  not 
satisfy  the  king ; and  that  the  archbishop  was  compelled  to  write 
the  second.  How  deeply  must  he  have  felt  himself  degraded,  when 
he  submitted  to  this  mandate  of  his  imperious  master  ! 


NOTE  B,  p.  60. 

On  account  of  its  relation  to  the  funeral  of  Catherine,  I add  the 
following  letter  from  Henry  to  Grace,  the  daughter  of  Lord  Marny, 
and  wife  of  Sir  Edmond  Bedingfeld.  The  original  is  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Sir  Henry  Bedingfeld. 

“ Henry  Rex. 

“By  the  King. 

“ Right  dear  and  welbeloved,  we  grete  you  well.  And  forasmuch 
“ as  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God  to  call  unto  his  mercy  out  of 
“ this  transitorie  lyfe  the  right  excellent  princesse  our  derest  sister 
“ the  Lady  Catharyne,  relict,  widow  and  dowager  of  our  natural 
“ brother  Prince  Arthur  of  famous  memorie,  deceased,  and  that  we 
“ entende  to  have  her  bodie  interred  according  to  her  honour  and 
“ estate,  at  the  enterrement  whereof,  and  for  other  ceremonies  to 
“ be  doon  at  her  funerall,  and  in  conveyance  of  the  corps  from  Kym- 
“bolton,  wher  it  now  remayneth,  to  Peterborough,  where  the  same 
“ shall  be  buryed,  it  is  requisite  to  have  the  presence  of  a good 
“number  of  ladies  of  honor,  You  shall  understand  that  we  have 
“ appoynted  youe  to  be  there  oon  of  the  principal  mourners,  and 


540 


APPENDIX. 


“ therefore  desire  and  pray  you  to  put  yourself  in  redynes  to  be  in 
“any  wise  at  Kimbolton  to  aforsayd  the  25th  daye  of  this  monthe, 
“ and  so  to  attende  uppon  the  sayd  corps  tyll  the  same  shall  be 
“ buryed,  and  the  ceremonies  to  be  thereat  done  be  finished.  Let- 
“ ting  you  further  wite  that  for  the  mourning  apparaill  of  your  own 
“ person  we  send  you  by  this  bearer  yards  black  cloth,  for 

l<  2 gentlewomen  to  waite  upon  you  yards,  for  2 gentle- 

“ men  yards,  for  8 yeomen  yards ; all  which  ap- 

“ paraill  ye  must  cause  in  the  meane  tyme  to  be  made  up  as  shall 
“ appertaine.  And  as  concernying  th’  abiliment  of  Lynen  for  your 
“ head  and  face  we  shall  before  the  day  limitted  send  the  same  unto 
“ youe  accordingly.  Given  under  our  signet  at  our  manor  of 
“ Greenwich  the  10th  daye  of  January. 

In  another  hand.  “ And  forasmoche  as  sithens  the  writing 
“herof  it  was  thought  ye  should  be  enforced  to  sende  to  London 
“ for  making  of  the  sayd  apparail,  for  the  more  expedition  we 
“ thought  convenient  to  you  immediately  on  receipt  of  this 

“ to  sende  your  servant  to  our  trusty  and  welbeloved  councellor 
“ Sir  Wn.  Poulet,  knt  comptroller  of  our  household,  living  at  the 
“freres  Augustines  in  London  aforesaid,  to  whom  bringing  this 
“letter  with  you  (him)  for  a certen  token  that  he  cometh  from  you, 
“ the  said  cloth  and  certein  Lynden  for  yr  head  shall  be  delivered 
“ accordinglie. 

“ To  our  right  dere  and 

“Welbeloved  the  Ladye  Benyngfeld.” 


NOTE  C,  p.  74. 

Of  so  great  importance  was  it  deemed  to  conceal  from  public 
knowledge  the  grounds  on  which  the  marriage  of  Henry  with  Anne 
Boleyn  was  pronounced  null  and  void,  that,  even  in  the  record  of 
the  j udgment,  the  place  which  they  ought  to  occupy  is  supplied  by 
the  phrase,  “quos  pro  hie  insertis  haberi  volumus.” — Wilk.  iii.  804. 
In  like  manner,  in  the  new  act  of  settlement,  though  the  real  ground 
of  the  archbishop’s  judgment  with  respect  to  Henry’s  first  marriage 
is  openly  stated,  that  for  the  same  prelate’s  judgment  respecting  the 
nullity  of  the  second  is  merely  said  to  have  been  “ certain  just  and 
“ true  causes.”  What  could  have  been  the  motive  of  such  conceal- 
ment, but  a desire  to  spare  the  king’s  reputation  ? 

To  my  conjecture  that  the  true  cause  was  the  previous  cohabita- 
tion of  Henry  with  Mary,  the  sister  of  Anne,  it  has  been  objected  by 
a distinguished  writer,  1.  That  in  such  case  “both  the  statute  and 
“ sentence  must  have  stated  as  their  main  ground  a notorious  false- 
hood ; for  the  commerce,  if  at  all,  must  have  been  before  the  act 
“ of  settlement.”  I do  not  see  how  this  inference  can  be  drawn. 
Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  assert  that  there  was  no  such  coha- 
bitation. The  archbishop  in  his  judgment  says  only  that  the  causes 


APPENDIX. 


541 


had  lately  been  brought  to  his  knowledge ; the  parliament,  that  the 
impediments  were  unknown  at  the  passing  of  a previous  statute,  but 
since  confessed  by  the  lady  Anne  before  the  archbishop,  “ sitting 
“judiciously  for  the  same.”  This,  plainly,  is  not  a denial  of  the 
fact  of  cohabitation,  but  only  of  that  fact  having  been  officially 
brought  before  the  archbishop  and  the  legislature  ; which,  in  both 
cases,  was  true.  Moreover,  we  are  ignorant  whether  the  unlawful 
commerce  between  Henry  and  Mary  Boleyn  was  publicly  known  or 
not;  but  it  is  certain, — i.  that,  in  order  to  marry  her  sister,  Henry 
had  obtained  from  Clement  a dispensation  to  marry  within  the  first 
degree  of  affinity,  ex  quocumque  licito  seu  illicito  coitu  proveniente, 
provided  the  woman  were  not  the  relict  of  his  own  brother ; and 
2.  that  such  dispensation  had  hitherto  been  considered  valid  accord- 
ing to  the  decision  of  Cranmer  himself  under  his  own  hand, — Affini- 
tatem  impedientem,  ne  matrimonium  contrahatur,  induci  quidemet 
nuptiali  fcedere  et  carnali  copula,  illam  jure  divino,  hanc  jure  eccle- 
siastico  ; wherefore  the  pontiff  could  not  dispense  in  the  first  case, 
but  could  in  the  last. — Burnet,  Rec.  xxxvi.  As  long  as  Henry  was 
attached  to  Anne  Boleyn  this  doctrine  prevailed ; as  soon  as  he 
wished  to  be  disengaged  from  her  a new  light  burst  forth,  and  it  was 
found  that  both  affinities  were  of  divine  right,  and,  consequently, 
that  the  impediment  arising  from  either  was  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
papal  authority. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  objected  that,  if  the  impediment  arose  out  of 
the  intercourse  between  Henry  and  Mary  Boleyn,  it  could  not,  as  the 
statute  says,  have  been  confessed  by  Anne.  But  it  is  plain  that  the 
word  confess  means  nothing  more  than  that  she,  by  her  proctors 
(she  was  not  present  herself),  admitted  in  the  archbishop’s  court 
the  allegation  that  such  commerce  had  taken  place,  and  that  such 
impediment  had  been  the  legal  consequence. 

But,  though  the  ground  of  the  divorce  from  Anne  is  not  openly 
stated  in  the  new  act  of  settlement,  it  is  obviously  implied.  By 
that  statute  it  is  enacted, — i.  That,  forasmuch  as  it  was  proved  in  the 
court  of  the  archbishop,  that  the  lady  Catherine  was  carnally  known 
by  the  king’s  brother,  her  marriage  with  the  king  shall  be  deemed 
against  God’s  law,  and  utterly  void  and  adnichiled:  2.  That,  foras- 
much as  the  king’s  marriage  with  the  lady  Anne  hath  been  adjudged 
by  the  archbishop  of  no  value  or  effect,  it  shall  be  deemed  of  no 
strength,  virtue,  or  effect : 3.  That,  since  certain  impediments  of 
consanguinity  and  affinity , according  to  God’s  law,  arise  from  the 
intercourse  of  the  two  sexes,  “if  it  chance  any  man  to  know 
“ carnally  any  woman,  then  all  and  singular  persons  being  in  any 
“ such  degree  of  consanguinity  or  affinity  to  any  of  the  parties  so 
“ carnally  offending,  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  within  the 
“cases  and  limits  of  the  said  prohibitions  of  marriage:”  and  4. 
Since  no  man  can  dispense  with  God’s  law,  all  separations  of  persons, 
of  whatever  estate  or  dignity,  heretofore  married  within  such  de- 
grees, made  or  to  be  made  by  authority  of  the  bishops  and  ministers 
of  the  church  of  England,  shall  be  firm,  good,  and  effectual,  notwith- 


542 


APPENDIX. 


standing  any  dispensation  granted  by,  or  appeal  made  to,  the  court 
of  Rome. — Stat.  of  Realm,  iii.  6589. 

The  reader  will  see  how  ingeniously  the  latter  part  of  the  statute 
was  framed,  so  as  to  apply  equally  to  the  two  marriages  of  the  king. 
1.  By  extending  the  scriptural  prohibition  to  the  affinity  arising 
from  any  carnal  knowledge  of  a woman,  whether  lawful  or  unlawful , 
it  opposed  the  same  impediment  to  the  marriage  of  Anne  Boleyn 
with  Henry  as  to  the  marriage  of  Henry  with  Catherine  ; 2.  By  de- 
claring such  impediment  indispensable  by  any  power  on  earth,  it 
made  the  dispensation  granted  by  Clement  to  Henry,  to  marry  any 
woman,  even  in  the  second  degree  of  affinity  (which  was  the  case  of 
Anne  Boleyn),  provided  she  were  not  the  relict  of  his  brother,  of  no 
more  force  than  the  dispensation  previously  granted  to  him  by 
Julius,  to  marry  the  relict  of  his  brother  ; and,  lastly,  by  declaring 
all  separations  of  persons  so  married,  made  by  the  bishops  of  the 
church  of  England,  firm,  good,  aUd  effectual,  it  gave  the  sanction  of 
the  legislature  both  to  the  divorce  from  Catherine,  notwithstanding 
her  appeal,  and  to  that  from  Anne,  notwithstanding  the  dispensation 
which  had  been  solicited  by  Henry  himself. 


NOTE  D,  p.  379. 

The  history  of  their  interview  is  interesting.  Ridley  waited  on 
Mary,  September  8,  1552,  and  was  courteously  received.  After 
dinner  he  offered  to  preach  before  her  in  the  church.  She  begged 
him  to  make  the  answer  himself.  He  urged  her  again  $ she  replied 
that  he  might  preach,  but  neither  she,  nor  any  of  hers,  would  hear 
him.  Ridley.  u Madam,  I trust  you  will  not  refuse  God’s  word.” 
Mary.  “ I cannot  tell  what  you  call  God’s  word.  That  is  not 
“ God’s  word  now  which  was  God’s  word  in  my  father’s  time.” 
Ridley.  “ God’s  word  is  all  one  in  all  times  ; but  is  better  under- 
“ stood  and  practised  in  some  ages  than  in  others.”  Mary.  u You 
“ durst  not  for  your  ears  have  preached  that  for  God’s  word  in 
“ my  father’s  time,  which  you  do  now.  As  for  your  new  books, 
“ thank  God,  I never  read  them.  I never  did,  nor  ever  will  do.” 
Soon  afterwards  she  dismissed  him  with  these  words  : “ My  lord,  for 
“ your  gentleness  to  come  and  see  me,  I thank  you;  but  for  your  offer 
“ to  preach  before  me,  I thank  you  not.”  As  he  retired,  he  drank 
according  to  custom  with  Sir  Thomas  Wharton,  the  steward  of  her 
household ; but  suddenly  his  conscience  smote  him ; “ Surely,”  he 
exclaimed,  “ I have  done  wrong.  I have  drunke  in  that  house  in 
“ which  God’s  word  hath  been  refused.  I ought,  if  I had  done  my 
“ duty,  to  have  shaken  the  dust  off  my  shoes  for  a testimony  against 
“this house.” — Foxe,  ii.  13 1. 


APPENDIX. 


545 


witness,  and  declared  on  liis  honour  that  the  king  did  not  sign  the 
commission,  but  that  a servant  of  the  name  of  William  Clark  im- 
pressed on  it  the  royal  stamp ; and  that  this  was  the  fact  appears 
now  from  Clark’s  own  list  of  instruments  to  which  he  had  affixed  the 
stamp,  in  State  Papers,  i.  p.  898.  The  patentees,  who  had  purchased 
some  of  the  duke’s  property,  petitioned  to  be  heard  by  counsel ; but 
they  afterwards  referred  the  matter  to  arbitration,  and  the  bill 
passed. — Journals,  32.  Dyer’s  Reports,  93.  The  duke  had,  how- 
ever, taken  the  precaution  to  obtain  a general  pardon  of  all  offences 
from  the  queen. — Rymer,  xv.  337. 


NOTE  G,  pp.  486  and  493. 

It  may  be  asked  why  I have  omitted  the  affecting  martyrdom  of 
the  three  women  of  Guernsey,  and  the  preternatural  death  of  Gar- 
diner. My  answer  is,  that  I believe  neither.  1.  The  first  rests  on 
the  doubtful  authority  of  Foxe,  whose  narrative  was  immediately 
contradicted  and  disproved  by  Harding.  Foxe  replied,  and 
Persons  wrote  in  refutation  of  that  reply.  I have  had  the  patience 
to  compare  both,  and  have  no  doubt  that  the  three  women  were 
hanged  as  thieves,  and  afterwards  burnt  as  heretics ; that  no  one 
knew  of  the  pregnancy  of  one  of  them,  a woman  of  loose  character  j 
and  that  the  child  was  found  dead  in  the  flames  after  the  body  of 
the  mother  had  fallen  from  the  gibbet.  The  rest  we  owe  to  the  ima- 
gination of  the  matyrologist  or  of  his  informer. — See  Foxe,  iii. 
625  ; and  Persons’s  Examination  of  Foxe,  part  ii.  p.  91. 

2.  Foxe,  on  the  authority  of  an  old  woman,  Mrs.  Mondaie,  widow 
of  a Mr.  Mondaie,  some  time  secretary  to  the  old  duke  of  Norfolk, 
tells  us  that  Gardiner,  on  the  1 6th  of  October,  invited  to  dinner  the 
old  duke  of  Norfolk ; but  so  eagerly  did  he  thirst  after  the  blood  of 
Ridley  and  Latimer,  that  he  would  not  sit  down  to  table,  but  kept 
the  duke  waiting  some  hours,  till  the  messenger  arrived  with  the 
news  of  their  execution.  Then  he  ordered  dinner;  but  in  the  midst 
of  his  triumph  God  struck  him  with  a strangury ; he  was  carried  to 
his  bed  in  intolerable  torments ; and  never  left  it  alive. — Foxe,  iii. 
450.  Burnet  has  repeated  the  tale. — Burnet,  ii.  329.  Yet  it  is 
plainly  one  of  the  silly  stories  palmed  upon  the  credulity  of  the 
martyrologist : for, 

1.  The  old  duke  of  Norfolk  could  not  have  been  kept  waiting ; he 
had  been  twelve  months  in  his  grave.  He  was  buried  October  2nd 
in  the  preceding  year. 

2.  Gardiner  had  already  been  ill  for  some  time.  Noailles  (v.  127) 
informed  his  court,  on  the  9th  of  September,  that  the  chancellor  was 
indisposed  with  the  jaundice,  and  in  some  danger. 

2 N 


VOL.  V. 


546 


APPENDIX. 


3.  On  the  6th  of  October  he  was  worse,  and  in  more  danger  from, 
the  dropsy  than  the  jaundice.  There  was  no  probability  that  he 
would  live  till  Christmas  (v.  150).  From  the  7th  to  the  19th  he 
was  confined  to  his  chamber ; and  left  it  for  the  first  time  that  day 
to  attend  the  parliament.  These  dates  are  irreconcilable  with  the 
story  in  Foxe ; according  to  which,  he  must  have  been  seized  with 
his  disease  on  the  16th,  and  could  never  have  appeared  in  public 
afterwards. 


% 


END  OF  VOL.  Y. 


PRINTED  BY  BALLANTYNE,  HANSON  AND  CO 
LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 


